HomeMy WebLinkAbout1306 WilcoxIn Re: Michael Steven Wilcox
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
01- 062 -C2
Order No. 1306
12/01/03
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 held. The record is complete.
Effective December 15, 1998, Act 9 of 1989 was repealed and replaced by Chapter 11
of Act 93 of 1998, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq., which essentially repeats Act 9 of 1989 and
provides for the completion of pending matters under Act 93 of 1998.
This adjudication of the State Ethics Commission is issued under Act 93 of 1998 and
will be made available as a public document thirty days after the mailing date noted above.
However, reconsideration may be requested. Any reconsideration request must be received at
this Commission within thirty days of the mailing date and must include a detailed explanation
of the reasons as to why reconsideration should be granted in conformity with 51 Pa. Code §
21.29(b). A request for reconsideration will not affect the finality of this adjudication but will
defer its public release pending action on the request by the Commission.
The files in this case will remain confidential in accordance with Chapter 11 of Act 93 of
1998. Any person who violates confidentiality of the Ethics Act is guilty of a misdemeanor
subject to a fine of not more than $1,000 or imprisonment for not more than one year.
Confidentiality does not preclude discussing this case with an attorney at law.
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 2
I. ALLEGATION:
That Michael Stephen [sic] Wilcox, a (public official /public employee) in his capacity as
Superintendent of the Southern Columbia chool District, and as Director of Educational
Services for the Camp Hill School District, violated the following provisions of the State Ethics
Act (Act 93 of 1998) when he used the authority of his office for a private pecuniary gain,
including but not limited to participating in actions of the Southern Columbia School District to
award a contract to provide services for "at risk" students of the school district to King's Bridge,
Inc., a company with which he is associated and /or serves as an officer and /or employee;
when contracts were awarded to King's Bridge, Inc. by the Southern Columbia School District,
without an open and public process; when he was compensated by the Southern Columbia
School District while simultaneously being paid to perform services by Kings Bridge, Inc.,
when he retained a laptop computer for his personal use which was property of the Southern
Columbia School District; when he failed to disclose on Statements of Financial Interestsfiled
for the 2000 calendar year income in excess of $1,300 received from Kings Bridge, Inc.;
when he failed to disclose his office, directorship or employment in Kings Bridge Inc., a
business entity on Statements of Financial Interests filed for the 1998, 1999 and 2000
calendar years with the Camp Hill School District; when as Director of Educational Services
for the Camp Hill School District, he failed to disclose on Statements of Financial Interests for
the 1999, 2000 and 2001 calendar years office, directorship or employment in Tri- Chamber
Foundation, an entity where he serves as secretary; when he failed to disclose Cabell County
School District as a source of income in excess of $1,300 on Statements of Financial
Interests filed for the 1999 and 2000 calendar years; when he failed to file a Statement of
Financial Interests for the 1997 calendar year while serving as Director of Education Services
for the Camp Hill School District; and when he utilized Southern Columbia and Camp Hill
School Districts equipment, facilities, personnel, materials and time for his private business
interests, including but not limited to Kings Bridge, Inc.
§ 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).
§ 1103. Restricted activities
(f) Contract. - -No public official or public employee or his
spouse or child or any business in which the person or his
spouse or child is associated shall enter into any contract valued
at $500 or more with the governmental body with which the public
official or public employee is associated or any subcontract
valued at $500 or more with any person who has been awarded a
contract with the governmental body with which the public official
or public employee is associated, unless the contract has been
awarded through an open and public process, including prior
public notice and subsequent public disclosure of all proposals
considered and contracts awarded. In such a case, the public
official or public employee shall not have any supervisory or
overall responsibility for the implementation or administration of
the contract. Any contract or subcontract made in violation of
this subsection shall be voidable by a court of competent
jurisdiction if the suit is commenced within 90 days of the making
of the contract or subcontract.
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 3
65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(f).
§ 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. 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.
Section 1104. Statement of financial interests required to
be filed
65 Pa.C.S. §1104(a).
§ 1105. Statement of financial interests
(a) Form. - -The statement of financial interests filed
pursuant to this chapter shall be on a form prescribed by the
commission. All information requested on the statement shall be
provided to the best of the knowledge, information and belief of
the person required to file and shall be signed under oath or
equivalent affirmation.
65 Pa.C.S. § 1105(a).
(a) Public official or public employee. - -Each public
official of the Commonwealth shall file a statement of financial
interests for the preceding calendar year with the commission no
later than May 1 of each year that he holds such a position and
of the year after he leaves such a position. Each public employee
and public official of the Commonwealth shall file a statement of
financial interests for the preceding calendar year with the
department, agency, body or bureau in which he is employed or
to which he is appointed or elected no later than May 1 of each
year that he holds such a position and of the year after he leaves
such a position. Any other public employee or public official shall
file a statement of financial interests with the governing authority
of the political subdivision by which he is employed or within
which he is appointed or elected no later than May 1 of each year
that he holds such a position and of the year after he leaves such
a position. Persons who are full -time or part -time solicitors for
political subdivisions are required to file under this section.
§ 1105. Statement of financial interests
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 4
65 Pa.C.S. §1105(b).
II. FINDINGS:
A. Pleadings
(b) Required information. - -The statement shall include
the following information for the prior calendar year with regard to
the person required to file the statement:
(5) The name and address of any direct or indirect
source of income totaling in the aggregate $1,300 or
more. However, this provision shall not be construed to
require the divulgence of confidential information
protected by statute or existing professional codes of
ethics or common law privileges.
(8) Any office, directorship or employment of any
nature whatsoever in any business entity.
1. On October 19, 2001, a letter was forwarded to Michael Stephen [sic] Wilcox, by the
Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission informing him that a complaint
against him was received by the Investigative Division and that a full investigation was
being commenced.
a. Said letter was forwarded by certified mail, no. 7001 0360 0001 4061 3686.
b. The domestic return receipt bore the signature of Joan Amey... .
2. On April 30, 2002, a letter was forwarded to Michael Stephen [sic] Wilcox, c/o Richard
C. Snelbaker, Esquire, by the Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission
informing him that the allegations in the October 19, 2001, notice of investigation were
being amended to include additional allegations.
a. Said letter was forwarded by certified mail, no. 7001 1940 0001 2179 3274.
b. The domestic return receipt bore the signature of Kristen Grubb, with a delivery
date of May 1, 2002.
3. On August 30, 2002, a letter was forwarded to Michael Stephen [sic] Wilcox, c/o
Richard C. Snelbaker, Esquire, by the Investigative Division of the State Ethics
Commission informing him that the allegations in the October 19, 2001, and April 30,
2002, notices of investigation were being amended to include additional allegations.
a. Said letter was forwarded by certified mail, no. 7001 1940 0001 2179 5452.
b. The domestic return receipt bore an unidentifiable signature, with a delivery date
of September 3, 2002.
4. On January 18, 2002, the Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission filed
an application for a ninety day extension of time to complete the Investigation.
5. The Commission issued an order on February 4, 2002, granting the ninety day
extension.
6. On April 15, 2002, the Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission filed an
application for a ninety day extension of time to complete the Investigation.
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 5
7. The Commission issued an order on May 2, 2002, granting the ninety day extension.
8. The Investigative Complaint was mailed to the Respondent on October 10, 2002.
9. Michael Stephen [sic] Wilcox was employed as the Superintendent of the Southern
Columbia Area School District from July 14, 1998, until June 30, 2001.
a. Wilcox resigned to accept a position as the superintendent of the Upper Dublin
School District effective July 1, 2001.
b. Wilcox previously was employed by the Camp Hill School District as the
Director of Educational Services from August 5, 1996, until August 7, 1998.
10. On March 16, 1998, Wilcox applied for the Southern Columbia School District (SCSD)
Superintendent's position through the Central Susquehanna Intermediate Unit.
a. Wilcox used his telephone number (717) 901 -2413 at the Camp Hill School
District as ... [a] point of contact.
b. Wilcox's resume also included his Camp Hill School District e-mail address of
swilcoxacamphillsd.k12.pa.us.
11. Wilcox entered into an employment contract from [sic] the Southern Columbia School
District on May 18, 1998. Contract terms were for five years commencing on July 14,
1998, and ending on July 13, 2003.
a. Contained in Wilcox's employment contract is Section D: Duties and Full -Time
Employment: Of specific relevance are subsections one and three which
specify specific duties and outside work as follows:
Subsection 1: The Superintendent shall be charged with the administration of
the schools under the direction of the board. During the term of this Agreement,
he shall perform his duties in a competent and professional manner in
accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the
policies of the District, as amended from time to time. The Superintendent shall
be the Chief Executive Officer of the District and, as such, shall be responsible
for:
1. recommending the employment of all employees and directing and
assigning teachers and other employees of the schools under his
supervision.
2. organizing, supervising and arranging the administrative and supervisory
staff;
3. suggesting regulations, rules and procedures deemed necessary for the
efficient and proper operation of the District;
4. setting yearly objectives for the District consistent with the annual school
budget, subject to the direction and approval of the Board;
5. establishing and maintaining effective procedures and controls for
expenditures of all school funds in accordance with the annual school
budget, subject to the direction and approval of the Board;
6. involving the Board no later than the end of February each year in the
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 6
preparation of the annual budget;
7. providing the Board with information pertinent to its legislative role;
8. preparing and submitting to the Board all matters requiring legal action;
9. attending all Board meetings as may be required from time to time, and
submitting a formal Superintendents report at the regular meetings;
10. informing the Board as to the operation of the school system and making
recommendations for the more efficient operation thereof; and
11. performing all duties incident to the office of the Superintendent as set
forth in the Public School Code and such other duties as may be legally
prescribed by the Board.
b. Subsection 3: The superintendent agrees to devote his full time, attention,
energies, skills and labor to his employment as Superintendent of the District
during the term of this Agreement. However, he may undertake consultative
work, speaking engagements, writing, lecturing or other professional duties and
obligations provided the Board is informed prior thereto and does not direct him
not to engage in such activities.
c. Wilcox's contract included sick and vacation time.
1. Sick Da s: The Superintendent shall be entitled to credit for twenty -five
(25) sick leave days accumulated during his previous employment
outside of the District, subject to verification acceptable to the Board,
plus twelve (12) sick leave days per year for each full year of service
under this agreement which can be accumulated and carried over from
year to year during the term hereof.
2. Personal Leave: The Superintendent shall be provided two (2) personal
leave days per year. Personal leave days may accumulate to five (5)
days. A payment of $100 will be made for each day not utilized or not
taken. Payment for unused personal days are to be made at the end of
each school year.
3. Vacation: The Superintendent shall be provided twenty (20) working
days of vacation which he may use at his option as long as such
vacation privileges do not adversely affect the educational process, or
the responsibilities of the administrator. Unused vacation days may be
accumulated at a rate of ten (10) days per year with a maximum of thirty
(30) days to be used in any one school year. The Superintendent may
select to be paid $150 for a maximum of five (5) unused vacation days
during one (1) fiscal year.
12. Wilcox received a superintendent's certificate from the Pennsylvania Department of
Education, and his educational background includes degrees from:
a. Ed.D., Education Administration, Virginia Tech, 1995.
b. M.Ed., Counseling, George Mason University, 1983.
c. B.S., Secondary Education, Old Dominion University, 1972.
13. Prior to being employed by Pennsylvania school districts, Wilcox held various
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 7
educational positions in the State of Virginia, including:
a. Middle School /Sub - School] Principal, Robinson Secondary School, Fairfax,
VA (1993-1996).
b. High School Principal [/Assistant Principal], Hayfield Secondary School,
Alexandria, VA (1990-1993).
c. Director of Guidance, Chantilly High School, Chantilly, VA (1986- 1990).
d. School Counselor, Falls Church High School, Falls Church, VA (1985- 1986).
e. School Counselor, Lake Braddock Secondary School, Burke, VA (1983- 1985).
f. Teacher, Falls Church High School, Falls Church, VA (1972- 1983).
14. King's Bridge, Inc., offers training programs for schools, businesses, government and
police.
15. Kings Bridge, Inc., filed articles of incorporation with the Virginia State Corporation
Commission on July 28, 1983 [sic].
a. Shareholders were identified as Charles P. Rembold, 10804 Zion Drive,
Fairfax, VA 22032 and R. Edgar Thacker, 907 West Poplar Road, Fairfax, VA
22170.
16. R. Edgar Thacker, corporate secretary, has annually completed and submitted reports
on behalf of Kings Bridge, Inc., since at least 1993.
17. On March 8, 1993, R. Edgar Thacker filed an annual report with the Virginia
Corporation Commission which included corporate officers and directors as follows:
a. Charles P. Rembold, President /Director
R. E. Edgar Thacker, Secretary /Director
Carla Watson, Director
Steven Wilcox, Director
18. Wilcox was named as a corporate director in annual reports filed on March 14, 1995,
and March 20, 1996, August 7, 1998, July 15, 1999, and July 17, 2000.
19. By way of correspondence dated April 16, 2001, from Wilcox to Edgar Thacker, Wilcox
requested that he be removed as director of Kings Bridge, Inc... .
a. Wilcox asserts in the letter that he wanted to remain as a trainer with the group
on a limited basis, and continue the option of offering his district an opportunity
to reduce payment by trading in -kind services as he (Wilcox) has done while at
SCSD.
20. Two annual reports were filed in 2001 by Thacker on behalf of Kings Bridge which
noted changes in the directors for Kings Bridge corporation.
a. A report filed on June 1, 2001, lists the removal of Charles P. Rembold and
Michael Stephen [sic] Wilcox as corporate officers and /or directors.
b. A report filed on July 10, 2001, lists corporate officers /directors as R.E. Thacker
and Brenda Spratt.
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 8
21. [Mainstream Counseling, Inc./]Mainstream is an entity which provides substance
abuse prevention services.
22. The PULSE concept was developed by Wilcox, Rembold and Thacker while all three
were employed in the Fairfax County, Virginia, school system during the early 1980's.
a. PULSE is an acronym for "People Utilizing Leadership Skills Effectively."
b. In 1991, this program was known as "PULSAR."
23. Wilcox was not an incorporator of PULSAR, Inc.
24. [Arthur Waleski/]Waleski worked under the supervision of Rembold at Robert E. Lee
High School, Staunton, VA.
25. Lonnie Woomer is ... [an apparent principal/]owner of Mainstream Counseling, 1001
Washington Street, Huntingdon, PA 16652, (814) 643 -1114.
a. Woomer had discussions with Wilcox regarding the PULSE program and
related issues between January 2000 and January 2001.
26. Wilcox utilized a variety of sources to identify grant resources including websites, grant
writers, the PA Department of Education and word of mouth.
a. Wilcox was not required to obtain board approval to seek grant funding on
behalf of the district.
1. Wilcox, as superintendent, would advise the board of grant funding
received and its designated uses.
27. SCSD did not have a PULSE program prior to Wilcox's tenure as superintendent.
a. The Pennsylvania Department of Education does not mandate school districts
offer PULSE or similar type programs.
28. The Southern Columbia Area School Board was provided with basic information on the
PULSE program and grant funding for the program.
a. The board permitted Wilcox and /or district staff to apply for grants.
1. The board played no role in identifying or applying for grant funding.
29. The district's PULSE program included training for teachers, administrators and staff,
educational services and PULSE retreats for students.
a. Program funding came from state and federal grants and in -kind contributions
by the district.
30. Minutes from the Southern Columbia Area School Board of Directors include the
following discussions encompassing information furnished the board on the district's
PULSE program and related funding.
August 16, 1999: Dr. Steve Wilcox, Superintendent, reported and introduced Jim
Breslin, who gave a report on the PULSE Grant.
September 20 1999: Board Members Daniel Yeager and Elizabeth Graboski
made a motion and second said motion to accept additional state funds into the 1999-
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 9
2000 budget and authorize appropriate expenditure from these funds was approved.
Safe Schools Initiative, $20,000.00 is to be used for substitutes, training, travel
expenses and supplies associated with the PULSE program. Motion carried by
unanimous, affirmative voice vote.
November 8, 1999: Dr. Steve Wilcox reported on grants for Safe Schools $20,000.00
and $26,000.00 to be received.
November 15, 1999: Dr. Steve Wilcox stated in the Superintendent's Report that the
PULSE team consist [sic] of Bill Hoffner, Sharon Leisenring, Marc Longenhagen and
Jon Vastine. Bill Hoffner gave a presentation.
February 21, 2000: On a motion by Linda Kreischer, board member, and second by
Elsie Bittner, board member, to accept state funds into the 1999 -2000 budget (Safe
School Initiative) in the amount of $26,400.00 was approved. Funds to be used to
support the PULSE program, Responsive Classroom and to purchase equipment to
enhance security. Motion carried by unanimous affirmative voice vote.
March 20 2000: On a motion by Rae Atherton, board member and seconded by
David Yeager, board member, to accept additional federal funds into the 1999 -2000
budget in the amount of $28,153 was approved. Funds to be used to support the
PULSE program. Motion carried by unanimous affirmative voice vote.
May 15, 2000: On a motion by Linda Kreischer, board member, and seconded by
Henry Hynoski, board member, approved the following student activity account:
PULSE Club, Claire Campbell and Greg Cappocion [sic], advisors. Motion carried by
unanimous affirmative voice vote.
October 16, 2000: On a motion by Linda Kreischer, board member, and Rae
Atherton, board member, accepting additional state and federal funds into the 2000-
2001 budget and authorizing appropriate expenditure from these funds. Safe Schools,
$22,800.00, to be used for PULSE training, responsive classroom training and
secondary enhancements. ACCESS, $3,525.91 to be used for responsive classroom
training and additional equipment and supplies for special education services.
March 19 2001: Dr. Steve Wilcox presented PULSE students and
parents /teachers in his Superintendent's Report. The PULSE students requested the
board consider a community center for teens and upcoming PULSE projects.
January 8 2001: "Dr. Wilcox updated the board on the 21 Century Grant recently
awarded to the district. The grant will provide $320,000 to improve student learning
and create community learning centers."
February 12, 2001: Superintendents Report, Item 3: "Noted that errors were found in
the 21' Century Learning Grant Application. These will be corrected; the granting
agency has indicated the errors do not have any effect on the grant award. Members
of the board and Dr. Wilcox then discussed various aspects of the grant program. Mr.
Porter asked that the errors be corrected and our eligibility verified. The board will then
determine the acceptability of the grant program."
June 11 2001: "Pete Eldridge was here today. He feels strongly that we need to
get started with the implementation of the 21 Century Learning Grant."
On a motion by Atherton and seconded by Yeager, accepting a 21 st Century Learning
Grant in the amount of $375,000.00, and ratifying the application therefore, was
approved. By a roll call vote: 6 -Yes; 2 -No; 1- Absent, the motion carried (Berger and
Porter voted no).
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 10
Prior to voting on the preceding motion, "Director Porter expressed the following
objections:
1. There are gross errors in the application. 2. Cross Resources, who will receive
$135,000 from the grant was not approved or known about until 1 month
following the grant submission. 3. A key administrator has affiliations with the
vendor of Pulse, whose use is written into the grant."
31. Each grant applied for and received by the SCSD consisted of state or federal funds
which were distributed by the Pennsylvania Department of Education and the
Commission on Crime and Delinquency.
32. The grants applied for during Wilcox's tenure as superintendent (1998 -2001) for the
SCSD included utilization of the PULSE program and /or Kings Bridge.
33. From 1998 to 2000, Wilcox, in his official capacity as superintendent of the Southern
Columbia Area School District participated in securing a total of eight (8) separate
grants from the Pennsylvania Department of Education, the Pennsylvania Commission
on Crime and Delinquency and the U.S. Department of Education which included
proposed funding for PULSE and /or Kings Bridge programs.
a. Three (3) grants were through the Pennsylvania Department of Education office
of Safe & Drug Free Schools and Communities.
b. Three (3) grants were the Center for Schools and Communities, Safe Schools
initiative program overseen by the Pennsylvania Department of Education.
1. Safe Schools Initiative grant funds come from the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania.
One grant was received by [sic] the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and
Delinquency Drug Education /Law Enforcement grant program.
One grant was received from the U.S. Department of Education through its 21
Century Grant program.
Safe & Drug Free Schools, Drug Education /Law Enforcement Grants, are
federal funds administered by the state.
34. Southern Columbia Area did not have a PULSE program prior to Wilcox.
a. Wilcox ... approved the content of grant applications and /or amendments prior
to their submission.
c.
d.
e.
35. Wilcox denies that he told certain district administrators that a PULSE program would
be implemented, averring that when he was questioned, he indicated that the PULSE
program would "suit District needs." (Response of Michael Steven Wilcox to the
Findings in the Investigative Complaint, at paragraphs 72 b -c).
36. The Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency made ... grant money
available through its Pennsylvania Drug Education /Law Enforcement Grant Program.
a. School districts throughout the state were notified of available grant money
through PCCD as part of the program.
b. Interested districts were required to complete and submit a grant application to
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 11
the PCCD outlining the amount requested and its intended use.
37. On June 15, 1999, the PCCD received a Pennsylvania Drug Education /Law
Enforcement Grant Program application in the amount of $28,153 from the Southern
Columbia Area School District.
a. The project title is listed as PULSE (People Utilizing Leadership Skills
Effectively).
b. James M. Breslin, Director, Special Education, Student Services, Southern
Columbia is listed as the district's contact person.
c. The grant period is identified as being from September 1, 1999, to June 30,
2000.
d. Subgrant number 98 -SC -01 -9581 was assigned to Southern Columbia.
e. Wilcox signed the grant's law enforcement /school cooperative agreement in his
official capacity as superintendent on June 11, 1999.
f. Wilcox signed a related consortium participation agreement in his official
capacity as superintendent on December 9, 1999.
38. Submitted with the grant were the following budget figures and justifications .. .
approved by Wilcox.
a. Budget Category Budget Amount
Personnel Costs (Salaries) $ 16,703.00
Supplies (PULSE Manuals $450) $ 950.00
Consultants $ 10,500.00
Total $ 28,153.00
39. The program objectives included the implementation of a PULSE programfor60at -risk
students in grades 7 -12, the training of 10 SCSD /community members as PULSE
facilitators, a three -day student /adult retreat, and maintenance of a PULSE club.
40. On January 27, 2000, the PCCD forwarded subgrant no. 98 -SC -01 -9581 to the SCSD
for the district's approval.
a. On February 2, 2000, Wilcox, on behalf of the school district, signed the grant
acceptance statement in the amount of $28,153 for the "PULSE Program"
project.
b. Wilcox's signature represents that he on behalf of the district agrees to accept
the grant "on the condition that you comply, in administering your program, with
all representations contained in your application as amended and with the
enclosed standard sub -grant conditions of the Commission."
41. Following receipt of the grant, Wilcox, as ... [SCSD] superintendent, submitted a
project modification request to PCCD dated April 12, 2000.
a. The submission requested a modification as follows: adjusted spending to
include more training of teachers for a fall middle school student retreat.
42. Wilcox ... submitted to PCCD a subgrant cumulative fiscal report on April 17, 2000,
detailing expenditures, which included expenses related to Kings Bridge's PULSE
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 12
program.
a. Wilcox denies being the sole preparer of the fiscal report but admits that he
signed it as Superintendent. (Response of Michael Steven Wilcox to the
Findings in the Investigative Complaint, at paragraph 82).
43. The PCCD issued two (2) payments to the Southern Columbia School District
honoring its $28,153 grant obligation to the district as part of subgrant number 98 -SC-
01 -9581.
a. $11,077 was issued to the district on January 20, 2000.
b. $11,076.00 was issued to the district on June 7, 2000.
44. The Southern Columbia Area School District did not seek any competitive bids for the
PULSE program portion of this grant.
a. Wilcox denies taking actions regarding this grant except that he admits that he
signed it as the District official. (Response of Michael Steven Wilcox to the
Findings in the Investigative Complaint, at paragraph 84 d).
45. The Pennsylvania Department of Education makes federal grant mone y available to
school districts through its Office of Safe Schools based on need and district
enrollments.
a. School districts submit grant applications to the Department of Education
detailing intended program uses for the funding.
b. Applications are reviewed for approval by Department of Education staff.
46. Wilcox denies taking various averred actions with respect to the $7,861 Safe & Drug
Free Schools and Communities 1998 -1999 grant program but admits that:
a. The initial grant application did not request funding for PULSE or Kings Bridge,
Inc., program services;
b. Wilcox signed a contract amendment in his official capacity as superintendent;
1. The amended grant proposal changed the allocation of the grant funding
from using American Drug & Alcohol Survey and a program evaluation
survey as provided by the Rocky Mountain Behavioral Science Institute
to Pulse Surveys and training;
(a) PULSE is a program of Kings Bridge;
c. The amount of the grant did not change;
d. Fiscal records of the Department of Education confirm this grant was paid in
eleven (11) installments to the district between October 16, 1998, and February
16, 2000. Payments were made to the district as follows:
Allocation Period: 1998 -1999 Amount
10/16/1998
11/16/1998
12/16/1998
01/15/1999
$2,096.28
$ 524.07
$ 524.07
$ 524.07
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 13
04/16/1999 $ 524.07
05/17/1999 $ 524.07
06/16/1999 $ 524.07
07/16/1999 $ 524.07
09/16/1999 $ 524.07
10/15/1999 $ 524.07
02/16/2000 $1,048.09
Total $7,861.00
e. Wilcox signed the grant completion report for this project;
1. Final project cost breakdowns were detailed as follows:
Salaries: $1,100.00
Benefits: $ 174.35
Supplies: $1,722.31
$4,020.64
$ 843.70
Total $7,861.00
(Response of Michael Steven Wilcox to the Findings in the Investigative Complaint, at
paragraphs 89, 90, 90 a, 90 a 1, 90 c, 94, 95, 95 b, 96 h).
47. ... Wilcox was sent correspondence from the Department of Education informing him
that Southern Columbia's allocation from the 1999/2000 federal Safe and Drug Free
Schools and Communities program was $6,413.00.
a. The allocation amount was based on the district enrollment.
48. .. Wilcox, in his official capacity of superintendent, signed the grant application for the
1999 -2000 PA DED grant.
49. Fiscal records of the Department of Education confirm the grant was paid in four (4)
separate installments to the district between May 16, 2000, and December 15, 2000.
Payments were made to the district as follows:
Allocation Period: 1999 -2000 Total
05/16/2000 $1,710.12
06/16/2000 $ 427.53
07/19/2000 $ 427.53
12/15/2000 $3,847.82
Total $6,413.00
50. Wilcox denies taking various averred actions with respect to the $6,413 Safe & Drug
Free Schools and Communities 1999 -2000 grant program but admits that he signed
the final project completion report in his capacity as SCSD superintendent. (Response
of Michael Steven Wilcox to the Findings in the Investigative Complaint, at paragraph
105 g).
51. On or about December 22, 1999, Wilcox received notification of the Department of
Education regarding funding from the federal Safe & Drug Free Schools and
Communities Act funds for 2000/2001.
a. No specific funding amounts were included as part of this correspondence.
52. Wilcox, as superintendent, signed the grant application seeking funds for the 2000-
2001 grant period ... .
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 14
a. This application was approved by the Department of Education on October
5, 2000.
b. The funding period was identified as July 1, 2000, through September 30,
2001.
c. Southern Columbia application included the following budget summaries:
Salaries: $ 1,340.00
Benefits: $ 138.00
Professional/Technical Services: $ 1,565.00
Purchased Services: $ 2,735.00
Supplies: $ 600.00
Total $ 6,378.00
d. This application included the following program summary.
Activity Cost
Maintain counseling services to students at risk $ 3,043.00
Purchase educational materials and resources
Substitute staff members
Secretary /Clerk
Supplies for DARE and DUI programs $ 2,400.00
Stipend for law enforcement
American drug and alcohol survey
Training of staff to assist with peed [sic] mediation $ 935.00
Purchase curricular materials
Total $ 6,378.00
e. Wilcox is also listed as member of the Southern Columbia Area School District
advisory council.
53. Wilcox received notification of the grant approval on or about December 6, 2000.
54. Fiscal records of the Department of Education confirm this grant was paid in nine (9)
separate installments to the district between December 15, 2000, and December 17,
2001. Payments were made to the district as follows:
Allocation Period:
2000 -2001 Amount
12/15/2000 $ 1,700.80
01/16/2001 $ 425.20
03/16/2001 $ 425.20
04/16/2001 $ 425.20
05/16/2001 $ 2,126.00
06/15/2001 $ 425.20
07/19/2001* $ 425.20
12/17/2001* $ 425.20
Total $ 6,378.00
*These payments were made after Wilcox's resignation as superintendent.
55. Wilcox denies taking various averred actions with respect to the $6,378 Safe & Drug
Free Schools and Communities 2000 -01 grant program but admits that he signed the
Cates or
SSI Grant
Match
PERSONNEL
*Substitutes (Salaries/Benefits)
10 /Subs x $60/Day x 3 /Days = $1,800
FICA (0.765); Work. Comp. (.013) = 0.0895
$1,800 x 0.0895 = $148
*School PULSE Club Sponsor Supplement ($2,000)
*Superintendent (3% of full -time position)
$75,000 x .03 = $2,250
*SHS Principal (5% of full -time position)
$65,000 x .05 = $3,250
', , 111
', • 1
Cates or
Grant
Match
•ersonne
g, 111
', • : 1
Contracted Services
$10,500
0
Transportation
$1,500
0
Equipment
0
0
Su. dies
$450.00
, 500.00
Other
, 5,500.00
.700.00
Total
$20,000
$31,011
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 15
grant application and served as the district contact person. (Response of Michael
Steven Wilcox to the Findings in the Investigative Complaint, at paragraphs 111 a -b).
56. The Southern Columbia Area School District continued participating in the Safe and
Drug Free Schools and Communities Grant program after Wilcox terminated his
employment at Southern Columbia Area.
57. Department of Education grant money provided through the department's safe schools
initiative was administered by the Central Susquehanna Intermediate Unit under the
auspices of its Center for Safe Schools.
a. Funding for the Safe Schools Initiative grants is funding from the state that is
administered through the Center for Safe Schools.
58. Wilcox denies taking various averred actions with respect to the SCSD's grant
application to the Pennsylvania Department of Education, Office of Safe Schools,
Bureau of Community and Student Services for the 1999/2000 safe schools initiative
but admits that he served as the district contact person and signed the grant application
as superintendent. (Response of Michael Steven Wilcox to the Findings in the
Investigative Complaint, at paragraphs 114 -115).
a. This grant application was in the amount of $20,000 with the district contributing
matching funds of $31,011 for total project costs of $51,011.
b. Wilcox is listed as the contact person as superintendent with a contact e-mail
address of swilcox @scolumbiasd.kl2.pa.us.
59. Wilcox denies that he prepared the following breakdown of budget expenses and
budget narrative but acknowledges that they were submitted relative to the 1999/2000
safe schools initiative grant. (Response of Michael Steven Wilcox to the Findings in
the Investigative Complaint, at paragraphs 115 a -b).
a.
b.
Budget Narrative
Category
SSI Grant
Match
*MS Principal (5% of full -time position)
$62,000 x .05 = $3,100
*Su v. Student Services (20.36% of full -time position)
$56,774 x .17 = $11,557
*Business Manager (3% of full -time position)
$58,195 x .03 = $1,746
*Secretary (7% of full -time position)
$20,000 x .07 = $1,400
*Parent Volunteers
60 Parents x $10 /Hr. x 2 Hrs = $1,200
*Advisory Board
14 Members x 2 Hrs x $10 /Hr x 12 Meetings = $3,360
CONTRACTED SERVICES (PULSE staff)
*School /Community Planning team training ($500)
*Pre- training Site Visit ($500)
*Facilitator training ($8,000)
*Follow -up Consultation — Two Days $0)
*Consultants For Three Day Retreat (
(Training activities are explained in project narrative /attachments)
$10,500
$0.00
TRANSPORTATION
(The Transportation Policy of the District is enclosed in Attachment A)
*Center for Safe Schools Technical Assistance
(Two Harrisburg Trips: Fall /Spring)
Trans ortation /Tolls /Parkinq
$1,500
$0
348 /Round Trip Miles x 2/ I rips x $ .32 /Mi. = $111
$8.00 (Est. Turnpike Toll) x 4 /Usages = $32
$10.00 /Parking x 2/Trips = $20
Lodginq /Meals
$75 /Lodging x 2 Trips x 2 Program Reps = $300
$50 /Breakfast /Lunch /Dinner x 2 Days x 2 Program Reps = $30
*Other Transportation
Students /Facilitators /Support Staff Travel to Retreat; Local
Travel for Pulse Training
2,303 /Miles x $ .32 /Mi. = $737
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 16
60. ... [It was] stated in the grant application that the purpose for obtaining the grant was
to enable the Southern Columbia Area School District (SCSD) to implement a PULSE
(People Utilizing Leadership Skills Effectively) Program as a prevention /intervention
school -based community inclusive program designed to meet the needs of adolescents
who are at high risk toward unhealthy behaviors.
a. The application noted that the program period was to be July 1, 1999 to June
2000 to target sixty (60) at -risk SCSD students from grades 7 -12 will be
targeted and recruited [sic] through a school /interagency process.
b. A PULSE "core training staff" will be contracted to provide: (1)
school/community planning team training; (2) facilitator training in PULSE
techniques; (3) scheduling /management of a three -day student -adult
experiential retreat; (4) PULSE Club implementation; and (5) program
evaluation.
c. The application noted that the overall goal of the program was to achieve safer
learning environments for children and staff.
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 17
d.
Objective 1: Implement a PULSE Program for sixty (60) "at- risk" students in
grades 7 -12 that will encourage appropriate decision - making through prevention
and intervention program.
1. Wilcox was ... one of the orginators [sic] of PULSE, and a trainer for
Kings Bridge.
Objective 2: Identify and refer sixty (60) SCSD students for PULSE Program
participation.
Objective 3: Train ten (10) SCSD /Community members as PULSE facilitators.
Objective 4: Provide a three -day student /adult retreat focusing on relationship,
building activities that promote positive social bonds between retreat facilitators
(teachers, police, business persons) and "at- risk" students.
Objective 5: Maintain a PULSE Club to: (1) provide alternative activities
(social /community service) for at -risk youth; (2) promote positive relationship
building; and, (3) develop an emotional support system.
Objective 6: Execute formative and summative evaluation on PULSE Program
components through quantitative and qualitative data collection procedures.
e. Design and operation of the program was identified as the following:
The Southern Columbia Area School District will implement a PULSE
(People Using Leadership Skills Effectively) Program for the program period of
July 1, 1999, through June 30, 2000. The program will be a
prevention /intervention, school- based, community inclusive program designed
to address the needs of adolescents who are at high -risk toward unhealthy
behaviors.
61. The grant application ... specified that the SCSD would contract with Kings Bridge,
Inc., to implement a PULSE Program.
a. The PULSE core training staff was identified as follows:
Attachment E. PULSE Program Management/Training Staff
Name
Dr. Steve Wilcox
James Breslin
Alan Lonoconus
Not Listed
Jayme Bickert
Gregory CapoccioneSocial
Susan Robinson
Sandra Lutz
Position
Superintendent — Southern Columbia
Supervisor of Special Education — Southern Columbia
Principal — Southern Columbia High School
Principal — Southern Columbia Middle School
Blended Support Specialist — Southern Columbia
Studies Teacher — Southern Columbia High School
Guidance Counselor — Southern Columbia High School
Guidance Counselor — Southern Columbia
62. [B]ackground on the PULSE program [was provided] with the grant application
which described the PULSE Program as being developed over a twenty -year period
with its roots firmly planted in substance abuse prevention, intervention, and
community action planning.
a. The research and development team composed of three (3) educators and a
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 18
substance abuse professional designed, field tested and evaluated activities
responsive to the needs from communities requesting services to address
substance abuse and related issues in the early 1980s.
b. . . [S]ubmitted with the application [was] a PULSE organizational chart detailing
involved business entities and individuals relative to the grant and its
administration, including Kings Bridge, Inc. which was identified as program
marketing, development management, implementation and evaluation.
63. The three educators Wilcox referenced in his background description of the PULSE
program included Thacker, Rembold and him.
64. On October 25, 1999, Wilcox signed two (2) separate agreement letters with the
Central Susquehanna Intermediate Unit securing the $20,000 grant.
a. This grant was paid to the Southern Columbia Area School District in two
$10,000 installments.
1. An initial $10,000 payment was made to the district on or about
November 5, 1999.
2. A second $10,000 payment was made to the district on or about August
2, 2000.
65. As part of this grant, three PULSE training retreats were held.
a. A planning session was held for district PULSE trainers on October 21, 29,
1999, at the Magee Hotel, Bloomsburg, PA.
b. An adult PULSE team experiences /practice was held at the Masonic Lodge,
Elizabethtown, PA.
c. A student retreat was held at the Masonic Lodge, Elizabethtown, PA on March
14, 15, 16, 2000.
66. Wilcox claimed and received expense reimbursements from the SCSD totaling
$165.50 for expenses incurred as part of this grant.
a. Claimed expenses included mileage and pizza purchases as follows:
03/14/00 — 03/16/00 — Mileage — Elizabethtown $ 45.50
Pizza $120.00
Total $165.50
b. Wilcox received district check number 20775 in the amount of $1,339.84 on
April 6, 2000, which included the $165.50 reimbursement.
67. Wilcox denies taking various averred actions with respect to the SCSD's $20,000 Safe
Schools Initiative Grant program for 1999 -2000 but admits that he served as the district
contact person and signed grant agreement letters with the Central Susquehanna
Intermediate Unit. (Response of Michael Steven Wilcox to the Findings in the
Investigative Complaint, at paragraphs 124 f and h).
68. ... [A] SCSD district grant application [was submitted] to the Pennsylvania Department
of Education, Office of Safe Schools, Bureau of Community and Student Services, on
October 1, 1999, for the 1999 -2000 safe schools initiative.
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 19
a. The application identified Wilcox as the program director.
b. Wilcox is listed under program director category with the title superintendent.
c. Wilcox used his district e-mail address of swilcox@scolumbiasd.k12.pa.us as
the contact point.
d. Wilcox denies that he and James Breslin, Director of Special Education at
Southern Columbia Area, were the only individuals who prepared the grant
application. (Response of Michael Steven Wilcox to the Findings in the
Investigative Complaint, at paragraph 125 d).
(1) Wilcox does not deny that he (Wilcox) o participated in preparing the grant
esponse of Michael Steven Wilcoxtothe Findings in the Investigative
a.
Category
Salaries and Benefits
Consultants and Contracts
Employee Travel
Equipment Purchase
Materials and Supplies
Other
Total
application for submission to the A Department of ducation.
om
p taint at paragraph 125 d).
e. This grant request was in the amount of $75,000 with the district contributing
matching funds of $28,303.00 for total project costs of $103,303.
69. . [T]he following breakdown of budget expenses and budget narrative [were
submitted] for the grant.
Grant
$3, /20.00
$44,840.00
0
$20,599.75
$5,840.25
0
$75,000.00
Match
$23,3
$4,000.00
0
$1,000.00
0
$28,303.00
b.
I. Salaries and Benefits
List by position and include the amount of time each person will spend on the
proposed program.
Progg ram
PULSE
Peer Mediation
Responsive Classroom
Peer Helping
Matching Fundslln Kind Donations
Superintendent
SHS Principal
MS Principal
Supv. Student Services
Business Manager
Secretary
Release TimelSubstitutes
3 days x 12 subs.
3 days x 3 subs.
8 days x 1 subs. [sic]
3 days x 3 subs.
3% of full -time position
5% of full -time position
5% of full -time position
20.36% of full -time position)
3% of full -time position
7% of full -time position
Total $23,303.00
Category Total: $3,720.00
Cost
36x$60 = $2,160
9 x $60 = $540
8 x $60 = $480
9 x $60 = $540
$75,000 x .03 = $2,250
$65,000 x .05 = $3,250
$62,000 x .05 = $3,100
$56,774 x .17 = $11,557
$58,195 x .03 = $1,746
$20,000 x. 07 = $1,400
Name
Cost
Retreat
Kings Bridge, Inc. (PULSE)
$7,840
60 students /12 adults
James Madison University (Peer
Mediation)
$5,000
40 students /3 adults
Comprehensive Health Education
Foundation Violence Prevention
$2,500
10 adults
Northeast Foundation for Children
(Responsive Classroom)
.29,500
20 adults
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 20
II. Consultants and Contractors
Identify contractor and individual costs of all services to be provided.
Category Total: $ 44,840.00
III. Employee Travel
Indicate number of miles and rate per mile. Include any necessary travel expenses for
the two grantees meetings as described under the Mandatory Grantees Meeting section of the
RFA. If the school mileage reimbursement rate exceeds $ .31 /mile, attach a copy of the travel
reimbursement policy.
Matching Fundslln Kind Donations
Travel and Lodging $4,000
70. The grant application ... included a listing of contractors /consultants and specifically
noted the SCSD will contract with Kings Bridge, Inc., to implement a PULSE program.
a. Wilcox, along with James Breslin, Director of Special ecial Education and Student
Services, and Charles Winters, Supervisor of and Grounds, are
identified as having various responsibilities for the program.
1. Breslin had not used PULSE.
71. On November 15, 1999, Wilcox was notified by the Department of Education that of
the $75,000 requested, a $26,400 grant was awarded.
72. On March 23, 2000, a revised budget was submitted to the Department of Education to
accommodate a reduction in grant funding to $26,400.
a. The revised budget figures were submitted under the signature of Julie Steele,
Administrative Secretary for the SCSD.
73. The revised budget figures and budget narrative submitted to the Department of
Education included funding for Kings Bridge /PULSE.
a. Budget Figures:
Category Grant Match Match Source
Salaries and benefits $2,800 $6,000 School District
Consultants and Contracts $11,200 $8,000 School District
Employee Travel
Equipment Purchase $12,400 $12,400 School District
Materials and Supplies
Other (Rental, Printing, etc)
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 21
Total $26,400 $26,400
b. Budget Narrative
Category
I. Salaries and benefits was [sic] reduced from $23,303 to $2,800.
II. Consultants and Contracts
Identify contractor and individual costs of all services to be provided.
Support of PULSE student training $4,200 and Responsive Classroom training
$7,000, total of $11,200 reduced from $4,840.00.
III. Employee Travel not listed.
IV. Equipment Purchase totaling $12,400
74. Wilcox signed two (2) agreements with the Central Susquehanna Intermediate Unit
accepting the $26,400 grant award on February 15, 2000.
a. Grant funding terms specified that the district would receive 20% of the funds
upon the return of the signed letters of agreement with the balance being paid
based on the submission of monthly invoices.
b. On March 27, 2000, Wilcox received notification from the center for the Safe
Schools that the district's budget revisions were accepted and the district could
proceed with the grant activities.
75. Wilcox's signature appears on monthly expenditure reports submitted to the Center for
Schools and Communities handling this grant.
a. Wilcox submitted monthly reports on:
April 10, 2000 $8,439.96
May 12, 2000 $6,222.84
August 2, 2000 $11,739.20
Total $26,400.00
76. Payment for ...the services [of Kings Bridge, Inc.] was included as part of SCSD
check number 20705 dated March 6, 2000, in the amount of $5,400.00.
77. Kings Bridge purchase order number 58022 dated March 31, 2000, in the amount of
$5,400.00 for training and materials for the March 14, 15, 16, 2000, retreat was
submitted to the school district under the signature of R.E. Thacker for Kings Bridge..
a. The initials "SWOK" appear on this invoice.
b. SW stands for Steve Wilcox.
78. Wilcox denies taking various averred actions with respect to the SCSD's $26,400 Safe
Schools Initiative Grant program for 1999 -2000 but admits that he served as the district
contact person and signed grant agreement letters with the Central Susquehanna
Intermediate Unit. (Response of Michael Steven Wilcox to the Findings in the
Investigative Complaint, at paragraph 135 g and i).
79. ... [A SCSD] grant application was submitted] to the Pennsylvania Department of
Education Office of Safe Schools, Bureau of Community and Student Services, on
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 22
July 7, 2000.
a. This grant application was in the amount of $60,000 with the district contributing
matching funds of $28,303.
b. Wilcox is listed as the program director and contact person.
c. Wilcox's district e-mail address, swilcox@scolumbiasd.kl2.pa.us is included as
the contact point.
d. Wilcox signed two letters of assurance and a district travel policy required for
the grant.
80. . [T]he following breakdown of budget expenses and budget narrative were
submitted:
a. Pennsylvania Department of Education Office for Safe Schools, 2000/2001
Safe Schools Initiative Grant July 7, 2000, Program Director, Dr. Steve Wilcox,
Superintendent.
Budget
Category
Category
I. Salaries and Benefits:
Prog ram
PULSE
Peer Mediation
Responsive Classroom
Peer Helping
Salaries and Benefits
Consultants and Contracts
Employee Travel
Equipment Purchase
Materials and Supplies
Other
Total
Matching Fundslln Kind Donations
Superintendent
Senior High School Principal
Middle School Principal
Supervisor Student Services
Business Manager
Secretary
Grant
$ 3,720.00
$27,000.00
$ 0.00
$25,800.00
$ 3,480.00
$ 0.00
$60,000.00
Release TimelSubstitutes Cost
3 days x 12 subs.
3 days x 3 subs.
8 days x 1 sub.
3 days x 3 subs.
Match
$23,303.00
$ 0.00
$ 4,000.00
$ 0.00
$ 1,000.00
$ 0.00
$28,303.00
36x$60 = $2,160
9 x $60 = $540
8 x $60 = $480
9 x $60 = $540
3% of full -time position) $75,000 x .03 = $2,250
5% of full -time position $65,000 x .05 = $3,250
5% of full -time position $62,000 x .05 = $3,100
20.36% of full -time position)$56,774 x .17 = $11,557
3% of full -time position) $58,195 x .03 = $1,746
7% of full -time position) $20,000 x .07 = $1,400
Category Total Matching Funds /In Kind Donations: $23 303.00
Category Total: $3,720.00
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 23
II. Consultants and Contractors:
Name
Kings Bridge, Inc. $10,000
(Middle School PULSE)
James Madison University $ 3,000
(Peer Mediation)
Northeast Foundation for Children $14,000
(Responsive Classroom)
Category Total: $27 000.00
III. Employee Travel
Matching Fundslln Kind Donations
Travel and Lodging
Category Total Matching Funds /In Kind Donations:
Cost Retreat
60 students /12 adults
40 students /3 adults
20 adults
$4,000
$4,000
81. The project narrative ... details the district's intent to implement a middle school
PULSE program for the program period of July 1, 2000, through June 30, 2001.
a. ... [The] narrative noted that the Southern Columbia Area School District will
contract with Kings Bridge, Inc., to implement a PULSE program.
82. On September 18, 2000, Wilcox was sent correspondence from the Department of
Education informing him that the district was awarded $22,800 from the Safe Schools
Initiative Grant Program for the 2000 -2001 school year.
a. This award was based on the $60,000 grant funding request submitted on July
7, 2000.
83. On November 1, 2000, Wilcox signed an agreement with the Central Susquehanna
Intermediate Unit accepting the $22,800 grant award.
a. Twenty (20 %) percent of this amount was released upon return of the executed
agreement.
b. The balance of the grant was paid based on monthly invoices submitted by the
district.
84. On October 17, 2000, Wilcox submitted the district's revised budget and budget
narratives which included contractor costs for Mainstream Counseling (PULSE) of
$12,000 and PULSE training for staff of $3,100.
a. Wilcox admits that he formally signed the district's revised budget for this grant.
(Response of Michael Steven Wilcox to the Findings in the Investigative
Complaint, at paragraph 142).
85. On February 21, 2001, Wilcox submitted a revision request to the grant request.
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 24
a. The grant amount remained unchanged.
b. The amount allocated to Mainstream Counseling was reduced from $12,000 to
$11,000.
86. This was the first grant application submitted by Wilcox on behalf of SCSD which had
PULSE services budgeted for Mainstream Counseling.
87. Wilcox denies taking various averred actions with respect to the SCSD's $22,800 Safe
Schools Initiative Grant program for 2000 -2001 but admits that he served as the district
contact person in his role as SCSD superintendent and signed grant agreement letters
with the Central Susquehanna Intermediate Unit. (Response of Michael Steven
Wilcox to the Findings in the Investigative Complaint, at paragraphs 145 f and i).
88. Charges incurred by the district were split among several grants.
a. Payments made to Kings Bridge, Inc., and Mainstream Counseling were from
grant and other district funding.
89. Financial records of the Southern Columbia Area School District confirm the following
payments were made to Kings Bridge, Inc., and Mainstream Counseling for PULSE
program related services.
a. Kings Bridge Inc.
Date Check No. Amount
01/07/00 20175 $ 7,000.00
04/06/00 20705 $ 5,400.00
06/07/00 21037 $ 7,000.00
06/28/00 21223 $ 6,000.00
Total $ 25,400.00
b. Mainstream Counseling
Date Check No. Amount
02/07/01 22632 $ 11,000.00
90. Payments made to Kings Bridge and Mainstream Counseling were the result of
purchase orders /invoices submitted to the district.
a. Four (4) purchase orders were received from Kings Bridge.
b. One (1) invoice was received from Mainstream Counseling.
91. Wilcox, as superintendent, approved purchase order numbers 58022, 58028 and
58032 from Kings Bridge by initialing each invoice. These purchase orders were in the
following amounts:
a. Purchase Order Number 58022 - $5,400.00
b. Purchase Order Number 58028 - $7,000.00
c. Purchase Order Number 58032 - $6,000.00
92. Kings Bridge purchase order number 58017 in the amount of $7,000 was paid without
Wilcox approving the invoice.
a. Wilcox verbally approved this purchase order for payment.
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 25
93. Mainstream Counseling's invoice no. 8501 in the amount of $11,000 was paid without
Wilcox's initials approving the invoice.
a. Wilcox verbally approved this invoice for payment.
94. Payments made to Kings Bridge and Mainstream Counseling were made from the
SCSD general fund account.
a. This account was funded in part by the aforementioned grants.
95. Financial records of Kings Bridge, Inc., confirm Wilcox received payments totaling at
least $27,900 from January 2000 through July 6, 2001.
a. Payments from Kings Bridge's First Union account number 2070418047188.
Date
01/25/00
04/26/00
05/10/00
06/15/00
b. Payments from Kings Bridge's American Community Federal Credit Union
account no. 2571
02/07/01
06/15/01
07/06/01
Check No.
1614
1622
1629
1640
Total
Date Check No.
1006
1020
1035
1041
Total
Amount
$ 3,500.00
$ 900.00
$ 4,000.00
$ 2,000.00
$10,400.00
Amount
$ 2,000.00
$ 4,000.00
$ 6,000.00
$ 5,500.00
$ 17,500.00
96. Payments issued to Wilcox from Kings Bridge did not begin until after Kings Bridge
received payments from the Southern Columbia, West Greene and Huntingdon Area
School Districts.
97. In addition to grant funding requested from the state, ... [a grant application was
submitted on behalf of the SCSp] for grant funding from the US Department of
Education as part of their [sic] 21 S Century Community Learning Center Grant.
a. The application ... sought total project funding of $568,478 with sources
including:
1. Federal:
Applicant:
State:
Local:
Other:
Program Income:
Total:
$375,973.00
$125,930.00
$ 2,700.00
$ 61,950.00
$ 1,925.00
$ 0.00
$568,478.00
b. The application's stated purpose of the 21 st Century Grant was to transform the
district's elementary, junior high school and senior high school library /media
centers into three 21 S century community learning centers.
1. The community learning centers would utilize social development and
juvenile crime diversion activities using the People Utilizing Leadership
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 26
Skills Effectively (PULSE) model.
2. The CLC's will be coordinated by full or part -time professionals who will
be trained as trainers in the PULSE model.
98. The grant assurance form was signed by Wilcox as superintendent of the SCSD on
March 20, 2000.
99. Wilcox did not disclose his relationship with Kings Bridge, Inc., to either the SCSD or
the federal government with [sic] while applying for the 21 Century Grant.
100. Peter Eldridge is employed by sh e US Department of Education as the Program Officer
for the Mid - Atlantic region, 21 Century Learning Communities.
a. Eldridge was responsible for overseeing the 21 st Century Grant program in
Pennsylvania, including the Southern Columbia School District.
101. Wilcox was Eldridge's 21 Century Grant contact person at Southern Columbia.
102. On March 5, 2001, Wilcox met with Eldridge in Washington, DC to discuss
inaccuracies in information related to community partners and site partners as well as
his involvement with Kings Bridge, Inc.
a. Wilcox denied being Director of Kings Bridge, Inc., even though he was listed
as such on corporate records.
103. Eldridge had a follow -up meeting at SCSD on June 10 or 11, 2001.
a. Present were Ray Clippinger (Director of Curriculum and Instruction), Wilcox,
Springer, SCSD business manager and Richard Roberts, SCSD Solicitor.
b. Wilcox informed Eldridge that he resigned his position with the SCSD and
would be replaced by Roy Clippinger as program director.
104. By letter dated June 11, 2001, SCSD Solicitor Richard Roberts notified Eldridge of four
changes being made to the SCSD's 21 S Century Grant application.
a. Change number three read as follows: "By clarifying that in implementing the
Grant, and specifically in providing the social development and juvenile crime
diversion activities at the Community Learning Centers referred to in the
Application, the District will use the People Utilizing Leadership Skills Effectively
(PULSE) model" and was amended to include the phrase "or another model
similar thereto" after PULSE model.
105. On June 12, 2001, Solicitor Richard Roberts wrote Eldridge to advise him of Wilcox's
situation with Kings Bridge and inquire as to any problems it may pose with the grant
award. Roberts writes:
a. "As you are aware, I am the Solicitor for the Southern Columbia Area School
District (the "District ").
In view of the fact that Paragraph 3 of Form OMB 424 B provides that the
District will "establish safeguards to prohibit employees from using their
positions for a purpose that constitutes or presents the appearance of personal
or organizational conflict of interest, or personal gain," the District wishes to
apprise you of the facts set forth herein below and request a determination as to
whether they have any impact on the grant process.
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 27
The Application provides that the Community Learning Centers will utilize the
PULSE Model. PULSE is a school based, community inclusive prevention and
intervention program designed to address the needs of children. The
Application further provides that the Community Learning Centers will be
coordinated by professionals who will be trained as trainers of trainers in the
PULSE Model. Section 6 of the Budget Justification reflects that "a PULSE
trainer of trainers will provide staff training in schools /community planning, techniques, program evaluation and PULSE Club implementation." Of
course, in view of the amendment referred to in Paragraph 3 of my letter of
June 11, 2001, the District would be able to use either the PULSE Model or one
similar thereto.
Kingsbridge, Inc., ( "Kingsbridge "), a Virginia corporation, holds a proprietary
interest in the PULSE program. Records of the Virginia Corporation Bureau
indicate that M. Steven Wilcox, Ed.D, the district's superintendent, is a Director
of Kingsbridge. Furthermore, Dr. Wilcox has advised that he is occasionally
retained by Kingsbridge, as an independent contractor, to provide PULSE
training. The District's Board of School Directors was not aware of these facts
until just recently. Enclosed is a letter from Dr. Wilcox to Kingsbridge which
indicates that Dr. Wilcox was under the impression that he had been removed
as a Director of Kingsbridge in the fall of 1998 and requests confirmation that
he is no longer a director.
b. Robert's letter was based [at )east in part] on information provided to him by
Wilcox.
106. Eldridge provided Solicitor Roberts with the following response on June 15, 2001,
advising that he saw no apparent conflict of interest for monetary or personal gain by
Wilcox and noted [sic] that Wilcox's name had been removed from the grant award
notification.
107. Since 2000, the Pennsylvania Department of Education, Office of Educational
Technology, has sponsored a Superintendent Technology Leadership Academy.
a. The Department of Education has contracted with the Montgomery County
Intermediate Unit No. 23 to serve as the program administrator.
b. The first technology academy was scheduled for July 2000.
108. On May 12, 2000, Superintendents throughout the state were sent invitation letters to
attend the first Pennsylvania Superintendent's Technology Leadership Academy to be
held July 24 -27, 2000, at the Hershey Convention Center, Hershey, PA.
a. Registration was limited to the first 100 registrants.
b. A fee of $200 was charged for the three (3) day event.
c. Attendees had their choice of a PC or MAC style laptop computer.
d. Registrants were required to attend the entire academy.
109. Wilcox was one of the school district superintendents receiving an invitation.
a. Wilcox requested and received permission from the school board to attend the
training.
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 28
110. The Southern Columbia Area School District incurred a cost of $200 for Wilcox's
attendance at the July 24 -27, 2000, TLA.
a. On August 1, 2000, the Montgomery County Intermediate Unit No. 23 invoiced
the school district (Invoice No. LW 1868) in an amount of $200.00.
b. The district issued check number 21836 dated September 11, 2000, in the
amount of $200 to the Montgomery County Intermediate Unit for Wilcox's
registration fees.
c. Wilcox did not sustain any out of pocket expenses to attend the training.
111. Wilcox was provided with an IBM ThinkPad T20, laptop computer, Type 2647, serial
number 2647 -640 S/N 78 -2331 in conjunction with his attendance at the TLA.
112. Wilcox did not incur any cost to obtain the computer.
113. Wilcox retained possession of the laptop computer he was provided with after
terminating his employment with the Southern Columbia School District on June 30,
2001.
114. Wilcox contacted Holly M. Jobe of the Montgomery County Intermediate Unit about
retaining possession of the computer prior to leaving the employ of Southern Columbia
Area.
a. Jobe verbally informed Wilcox that the computer was the property of Southern
Columbia Area School District and should remain there.
115. Wilcox returned the computer to the Southern Columbia Area School District on April
25, 2002.
116. Wilcox returned the computer only after it was determined missing from the district as
part of a school audit conducted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department
of Auditor General, Bureau of School Audits in 2002.
117. On April 26, 2002, the Department of the Auditor General released audit findings for
the audit years ending June 30, 2000, and June 30, 1999, with findings and
recommendations through April 26, 2002.
a. Audit finding number 4 entitled failure to return district property related directly
to Wilcox retaining the computer.
118. Audit finding number 4 had the following discussion and recommendation relative to
the computer:
a. "During our examination of board minutes, invoices and conference expenses
of the former superintendent of schools, it was disclosed that a laptop computer
purchased with district funds was not returned to the district when the former
superintendent left the district's employment June 30, 2001. The computer was
obtained through the former superintendent's participation in the Pennsylvania
Superintendent's Technology Leadership Academy held during July 2000. The
$200 cost of this conference was paid for by the district. According to the
technology leadership academy guidelines and instructions, in order to register
and attend the conference, the attendees agreed that the laptop computer was
the superintendent's to us [sic] during his tenure with the district, but that it is
the district's property. The laptop was valued at $2,000 and $3,000 at the time
the former superintendent obtained the computer through the academy. During
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 29
the course of our audit, we informed the present administration of this situation.
Administrative personnel stated that they were unaware that the computer was
the district's property. The administration immediately contacted the former
superintendent and the computer was returned to the district on April 25, 2002.
119. Wilcox was annually provided with blank SFI forms to complete ... [at] both the Camp
Hill and Southern Columbia School Districts.
120. Wilcox's position of Director of Educational Services for the Camp Hill School District,
included the following duties and responsibilities:
a. Wilcox's position as director of educational services encompassed duties
defined for the position of director of curriculum, instruction, research and
development and special education coordinator. Wilcox was performing duties
consistent with that as an assistant superintendent, but was not specifically
classified as one. Camp Hill includes job descriptions for both positions. As
director of curriculum, instruction, research and development, general duties
related to curriculum, staff development, strategic planning, instruction and
other duties. General duties relate to overall supervision in these category
areas, as well as making recommendations. Other duties include the
supervision, writing, implementation and reporting of Title I, Title III and Drug
Free School Grants, assumes the duties of the superintendent during the
superintendent's absence and assumes duties of high school principal as
needed. Under specific duties for special education coordinator portion, Wilcox
was responsible for supervision of all aspects of the special education program,
and the preparation and administration of the special education budget.
121. Statements of Financial Interests forms on file with the Southern Columbia School
Board include the following filings for Wilcox:
a. Calendar Year:
Filed:
Position:
Creditors:
Direct /Indirect Income:
Office, Directorship or
Emp. in any Business:
Financial Interest in any
Legal Entity:
All other financial interests:
b. Calendar Year:
Filed:
Position:
Real Estate Interests:
Creditors:
Direct /Indirect Income:
Office, Directorship or
Emp. in any Business:
Financial Int. in any
Business:
All other financial interests:
2001
04/23/02 on SEC form 1/2002
Superintendent
None
Upper Dublin School District; Cabell County
Schools, Southern Columbia Area School
District; Kings Bridge, Inc.
Kings Bridge, Inc. — Consultant
No equity interest in any entity other than in
form of consultant for Kings Bridge, Inc.
None
2000
02/19/01
Superintendent
None
Susquehanna Credit Union
Southern Columbia School District;
Huntingdon School District
None
None
None
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 30
c. Calendar Year: 1999
Filed: 01/25/01
Position: Superintendent
Real Estate Interests: None
Creditors: None
Direct /Indirect Income: Southern Columbia School District
Office, Directorship or
Emp. in any Business: None
Financial Int. in any
Business: None
All other financial interests: None
d. Calendar Year: 1998
Filed: 05/01/99
Position: Superintendent
Real Estate Interests: None
Creditors: None
Direct /Indirect Income: Southern Columbia School District
Office, Directorship or
Emp. in any Business: None
Financial Int. in any
Business: None
All other financial interests: None
122. On May 10, 2001, Wilcox filed amendments to Statement of Financial Interests he
previously filed with the Southern Columbia School District.
123. During calendar years 1999, 2000 and 2001 Wilcox served as an officer .. [and /or]
director ... of Tri- Chamber Foundation, Inc.
a. Tri- Chamber Foundation, Inc., is located at 206 South Mulberry Street,
Berwick, PA 18603... .
b. The Tri- Chamber Foundation is a non - profit corporation with a stated purpose to
provide leadership and resources to elevate the proficiency of the workforce in
the area served by the Berwick, Bloomsburg and Danville Chamber of
Commerce.
c. Wilcox was not compensated for this position.
124. Articles of Incorporation on file with Pennsylvania Department of State include
corporate papers for the Tri- Chamber Foundation.
a. The Tri- Chamber Foundation was incorporated on December 1, 1999.
b. Incorporators are identified as: Jessie Peterson Hall, 4 Welsh Road, Danville,
PA 17821; Karen Ferrigno, RR #, Box 3078, Berwick, PA 18603; Steven
Wilcox, 20 Horizon Drive, Elysburg, PA 17824.
c. Hall is identified as the Chief Executive Officer, Wilcox, the Secretary and
Ferrigno the Treasurer.
125. Wilcox did not disclose his position with Tri- Chamber on Statements of Financial
Interests he filed for the 1999, 2000 and 2001 calendar years.
126. Beginning on October 24, 1997, Wilcox entered into four (4) separate consultant
agreements with the Cabell County Board of Education, P.O. Box 446, Huntington,
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 31
West Virginia 25709 to provide training for peer helpers.
a. Contracts were entered into for services provided during 1997,
2001 calendar years.
127. Wilcox received compensation in excess of $1,300 annually from the
Education as follows:
a.
b.
1999: $1,500.00
2000: $2,200.00
c. 2001: $2,600.00
128. Wilcox's amended Statements of Financial Interests did not include the disclosure of
income received in excess of $1,300 annually from the Cabell County Board of
Education during the 1999 or 2000 calendar years.
129. Wilcox used the resources of the Camp Hill and Southern Columbia Area School
Districts to facilitate his private business dealings with the Cabell County Board of
Education, including ... the use of telephones and e-mail address ... .
130. Cabell County employees were provided, by Wilcox with his office mailing address,
telephone number and school district e-mail address, the following contact information
for while Wilcox worked at Camp Hill Area and Southern Columbia area:
a. Camp Hill Area:
Steve Wilcox, Director of Educational Services
Administrative Building
2627 Chestnut Street
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717) 901 -2400 — Phone
(717) 901 -2416 — Fax
swilcoxacamphillsdkd.pa.us
b. Southern Columbia Area:
Steve Wilcox .. .
RR 2, Box 372B
Catawissa, PA 17820
Southern Columbia School District
(570) 356 -2331, ext. 330 — Work
Secretary Susan .. .
(570) 356 -2892 — Fax
570 672 -3867 — Home (voice mail)
0 orizon Drive
Elysburg, PA 17824
131. Cabell County Board of Education employees Debra Chapman, Carol Brown and
Audrey Neale each contacted Wilcox at Wilcox's work phone numbers at both Camp
Hill and Southern Columbia.
a.
b.
c.
1999, 2000 and
Cabell Board of
The nature of these calls related to arranging for peer counseling weekends.
Each contacted Wilcox several times at work.
These calls did not relate in any way to Wilcox's duties for the Camp Hill or
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 32
Southern Columbia School Districts.
132. Wilcox ...invoiced the Cabell County Board of Education for peer counselor services
on November 25, 1997.
a. Wilcox's invoice was in the amount of $1,295.00 for services rendered on
November 6, 7, 8, 1997.
b. The Camp Hill School District did not have any dealings with the Cabell County
Board of Education.
c. This invoice was for personal work performed by Wilcox.
133. Wilcox used the mailing address of the Southern Columbia School District, RR #2, Box
372 -B, Catawissa, PA 17820, on his undated invoice to the Cabell County Board of
Education for consultant services rendered on March 23, 24, 25, 2000.
a. Wilcox's invoice was in the amount of $2,200 for these services.
b. The Southern Columbia School District did not have any dealings with the
Cabell County Board of Education.
c. This invoice was for personal work performed by Wilcox.
134. Wilcox presented peer counseling training for the Cabell County Board of Education at
Camp Virgil Tate, Route 4, Box 141 B, Charleston, WV 25312, on the following dates:
a. Thursday, November 6, 1997, through Saturday, November 8, 1997.
b. Thursday, March 4, 1999, through Saturday, March 6, 1999.
c. Thursday, March 23, 2000, through Saturday, March 25, 2000.
d. Friday, March 9, 2001, through Sunday, March 11, 2001.
e. Wilcox was assisted by Charles Rembold during the 1999 and 2001 training
sessions.
135. Wilcox did not utilize annual or personal leave from the Southern Columbia School
District on Thursday, March 4, 1999... or Friday, March 9, 2001.
a. Wilcox was conducting training sessions ... [on] these days at Camp Virgil
Tate, Charleston, WV.
b. Camp Virgil Tate is located at least 411 miles from Catawissa, PA, according to
mapsonus.switchboard.com.
c. Wilcox had at least eight (8) hours of travel to get to Camp Virgil T a t e . .. .
136. Wilcox was compensated by Cabell County while conducting training for the Cabell
County Board of Education while simultaneously receiving compensation from
Southern Columbia.
a. This training did not relate to Wilcox's duties as superintendent at Southern
Columbia.
137. Wilcox did not seek or receive approval from the Southern Columbia School Board to
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 33
perform any consulting services for the CabeII County Board of Education.
a. Wilcox would not have been approved by the SCSD board of directors to be
simultaneously paid by the SCSD while also performing consulting services.
138. Wilcox did not utilize annual or personal leave from the Camp Hill School District on
Thursday, November 6, 1997, or Friday, November 7, 1997.
a. Wilcox was conducting training sessions ... [on] these days at Camp Virgil
Tate, Charleston, WV.
b. Camp Virgil Tate is located at least 351 miles from Camp Hill, PA, according to
mapsonus.switchboard.com.
c. Wilcox had at least seven (7) hours of travel to get to Camp Virgil T a t e . .. .
139. Financial records of the Cabell County Board of Education confirm Wilcox received the
following payments from the district for consulting services since 1997:
Date
12/19/97
02/25/99
03/16/00
03/01/01
a. These funds were deposited by Wilcox into his personal account at the
Susquehanna Valley Federal Credit Union.
140. Wilcox did not disclose the Cabell County Board of Education as a direct /indirect
source of income on Statements of Financial Interests forms filed for the 1998 and
2000 calendar years.
a. Wilcox received income from Cabell County in excess of $1,300 annually
during 1998 and 2000.
1. Wilcox received $1,500 during 1999.
2. Wilcox received $2,200 during 2000.
141. Wilcox provided counseling /consultant services for the Huntingdon Area School
District, Huntingdon, Pennsylvania, since at least 1996.
a. Waleski is[ /was] employed as the assistant high school principal ... by HSD.
b. Waleski is[ /was] also a compensated trainer for Kings Bridge, Inc.
142. Business records of the Huntingdon Area School District reflect Wilcox received
compensation from the district during calendar years 1996, 1997 and 1998. The
following payments were issued to Wilcox.
a.
Transaction Check
Date No.
11/19/96 D6416
12/17/96 046822
04/22/97 048244
Check No.
162824
176987
206255
214937
Amount
$1,295.00
$1,500.00
$2,200.00
$2,600.00
Payee Amount
Michael S. Wilcox $878.00
Michael S. Wilcox $336.40
Stephen [sic] $493.00
Detail
HeTfine training /conference
Training and Mileage
Drug Free Travel
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 34
Wilcox
05/15/98 053114 Steve Wilcox $600.00 PULSE Camp Consultant
143. Wilcox also served as a contractor ... for the West Greene School District in 1998 and
2000 in relation to that school district's PULSE program.
144. In October 2001 Wilcox sent letters to the West Greene School District regarding
Wilcox's affiliation with Kings Bridge and the PULSE program.
145. Wilcox submitted a copy of the front side of personal check number 902 dated October
18, 2001, in the amount of $1,211.97 to the Investigative Division of the State Ethics
Commission.
a. This check copy was provided to verify the reimbursement payment Wilcox
claimed to have made to the West Greene School District.
b. This check was drafted on Wilcox's Susquehanna Valley Federal Credit Union
Account.
c. Check number 902 never cleared Wilcox's account.
146. Wilcox received the following compensation from the Camp Hill and Southern
Columbia Area School Districts during the time period ... [indicated]
Year
1997
1998
1998
1999
2000
W -2 Wages, Tips, Other Compensation
$68,751.40 Camp Hill
$42,979.23 Camp Hill
$34,604.56 Southern Columbia
$74,559.08 Southern Columbia
Southern Columbia
147. While employed as Director of Educational Services for the Camp Hill School District
from August 5, 1996, to August 7, 1998, Wilcox had a direct phone line to his office.
a. (717) 901 -2413 was assigned to Wilcox.
b. Wilcox used this telephone to make long distance telephone calls.
148. Employees of the Camp Hill School District who make personal long distance calls
using district phones are required to use a calling card, call collect or reimburse the
district.
a. Reimbursements at the district's management level was done on the honor
system.
b. Wilcox was in the management level as Director of Educational Services.
149. Wilcox ... placed long distance calls from his Camp Hill School District Office, number
(717) 901 -2413 relating to non - district business and other personal endeavors.
150. The Camp Hill School District did not have any business dealings with Mainstream
Counseling, Inc., Kings Bridge, Inc., the West Greene School District, the Cabell
County Board of Education, Edgar Thacker or Charles Rembold.
151. Wilcox's April 23, 1998, call to Catawissa (717) 356 -2331, was to the Southern
Columbia Area School District.
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 35
a. This call did not relate to his duties for the Camp Hill School District.
b. Wilcox was seeking employment with Southern Columbia Area at the time.
152. Calls placed by Wilcox to Elizabethtown, PA, (717) 367 -8878 were to the State Farm
Insurance Company.
a. Wilcox had insurance coverage from State Farm Insurance.
b. These calls did not relate to Wilcox's duties fro [sic] the Camp Hill School
District.
153. Wilcox had access to a general phone line while serving as Superintendent of the
Southern Columbia Area School District.
a. Wilcox did not have a direct phone line assigned to him.
154. It is the policy of the SCSD for employees of the district who make personal long
distance calls using district phones to use a calling card, call collect or reimburse the
district.
a. Phone bills are circulated to district employees, including the superintendent for
review.
b. Employees are to identify any personal calls placed and reimburse the district.
155. Wilcox would review district phone bills and identifying [sic] personal calls placed for
the purposes of reimbursement.
156. Fiscal records of the Southern Columbia Area School District include the following
reimbursement payments made by Wilcox to the district.
Date Check No. Amount
12/04/98 122 $ 35.05
01/21/99 420 $ 9.60
02/26/99 708 $ 22.41
03/10/99 823 $ 81.17
04/26/99 741 $ 18.20
05/04/99 742 $ 11.00
06/11/99 760 $ 38.00
07/28/99 772 $ 27.74
08/23/99 789 $ 8.45
12/21/99 847 $ 26.92
12/23/99 408 $ 21.16
10/03/00 556 $ 37.05
11/23/00 574 $ 6.35
02/12/01 610 $ 12.91
05/16/01 659 $ 35.12
06/20/01 676 $ 30.65
Total $421.78
a. Wilcox admits that his reimbursement payments listed above totaling $421.78
did not cover all ersonal long distance calls that he placed from Southern
Columbia area offices but avers that he made additional payments in currency.
(Response of Michael Steven Wilcox to the Findings in the Investigative
Complaint, at paragraphs 246, 246 a).
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 36
157. Wilcox used phones of the Southern Columbia Area School District to conduct
personal business with the CabeII County School District, Huntington, WV.
a. Wilcox placed at least 20 calls to CabeII County School District offices and /or
representatives.
b. During this time, Wilcox had a consulting contract with CabeII County.
158. Wilcox utilized telephones of the SCSD to place calls relative to his private business
dealings with the CabeII County School District.
a. Calls were placed by Wilcox to these numbers as follows:
Date Number Minutes Cost
01/06/99 304 736 -3532 0.8 0.09
01/06/99 304 528 -6439 23.8 2.86
01/05/99 304 528 -6416 1.2 0.14
03/01/99 304 528 -6439 7.0 0.77
02/16/99 304 528 -6416 1.5 0.17
02/10/99 304 528 -6439 4.4 0.48
02/09/99 304 528 -6439 1.5 0.17
02/11/99 304 528 -6439 1.2 0.13
10/05/99 304 528 -6416 2.3 0.25
10/08/99 304 528 -6416 0.9 0.10
03/09/00 304 528 -6416 0.5 0.04
03/07/00 304 528 -6416 1.9 0.21
03/09/00 304 528 -6423 2.6 0.29
03/20/00 304 528 -6400 10.1 1.11
12/15/00 304 528 -6439 0.9 0.10
01/17/01 304 528 -6439 1.7 0.19
01/24/01 304 528 -6439 0.8 0.09
01/24/01 304 697 -2082 0.9 0.10
03/06/01 304 528 -6439 0.5 0.06
03/06/01 304 697 -2082 4.8 0.53
Total 69.3 7.88
b. Wilcox also placed calls to Charles Rembold at the West Greene School
District related to Cabell County training.
159. Wilcox placed calls from Southern Columbia to ... Edgar Thacker; Charles Rembold,
Arthur Waleski, Mainstream Counseling (Lonnie Woomer) related to Kings Bridge,
Inc., business.
160. Wilcox identified towns including Norfolk, Fairfax, Waynesboro and Braddock, Virginia
as to which he placed personal long distance calls from Southern Columbia.
161. . . Wilcox received calls at Southern Columbia Area from Edgar Thacker, Charles
Rembold, Art Waleski and Lonnie Woomer.
a. None of the four (4) were employed by the Southern Columbia Area School
District.
162. Phone records of Mainstream Counseling confirm at least 19 calls were placed to the
Southern Columbia Area School District, while Wilcox was employed as the district
superintendent.
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 37
a. Mainstream Counseling continued to contact Wilcox regarding Kings Bridge
business even after Wilcox left Southern Columbia Area. Additional calls were
placed to Wilcox at his residence or place of employment.
Date Time Number Called Place Time
08127/01 10:55 AM 215 643 -8800 Ambler 1.6
08/30/01 11:17 AM 215 643 -8800 Ambler 1.1
08/30/01 3:57 PM 215 643 -8801 Ambler 0.2
08/30/01 4:45 PM 215 542 -1782 Ambler 1.6
09/04/01 12:16 PM 215 643 -8801 Ambler 0.3
09/13/01 12:16 PM 215 643 -8801 Ambler 0.2
09/13/01 6:05 PM 215 542 -1782 Ambler 0.8
09/20/01 7:26 PM 215 542 -1782 Ambler 1.1
09/13/01 7:23 PM 215 643 -87801 Ambler 0.6
sic
09/20/01 7:24 PM 21 ) 643 -8801 Ambler 0.2
163. Wilcox submitted ... [documents] to Kings Bridge detailing hours spent performing
research based work for Kings Bridge.
a. Wilcox provided these ...documents] to Edgar Thacker d /b /a Kings Bridge,
Inc., and the Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission.
164. ... [Documents] submitted by Wilcox detail the following dates worked and duties
performed and expenses claimed.
Date Time Reason E x ense
7/20 .5 data collection $100.00
7/21 .5 data collection 100.00
7/26 .5 data collection 100.00
10/4 1.0 data collection 200.00
10/5 1.0 data collection 200.00
10/18 .5 research 100.00
10/26 .5 research 100.00
11/4 .5 data collection 100.00
11/6 .5 data collection 100.00
11/7 .5 research 100.00
11/8 1.0 research 200.00
11/9 1.0 research 200.00
11/14 .5 data collection 100.00
11/15 .5 data collection 100.00
11/29 1.0 research 200.00
11/30 .5 research 100.00
12/6 .5 research 100.00
12/14 .5 research 100.00
12/12 .5 research 100.00
$2,400.00
January - May 1998
Date Time Reason E x ense
1 /11 .5 research $100.00
1/17 .5 research 100.00
1/24 .5 research 100.00
2/8 .5 research 100.00
2/9 1.0 research 200.00
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 38
2/15 .5 data collection 100.00
2/21 .5 data collection 100.00
2/22 1.0 research 200.00
2/25 .5 data collection 100.00
2/26 1.0 research 200.00
2/28 .5 data collection 100.00
2/29 .5 data collection 100.00
3/1 1.0 research 200.00
3/6 .5 research 100.00
3/8 .5 research 100.00
3/11 .5 research 100.00
3/17 .5 data collection 100.00
3/22 1.0 research 200.00
3/25 .5 data collection 100.00
4/12 .5 data collection 100.00
4/6 .5 data collection 100.00
4/12 .5 data collection 100.00
4/18 .5 data collection 200.00
4/19 1.0 research 200.00
4/21 .5 research 100.00
5/10 1.0 research 200.00
5/15 .5 research 100.00
5/18 .5 research 100.00
6/13 .5 research 100.00
6/27 .5 research 100.00
$3,600.00
July - Dec. 1998
Date Time Reason E x e nse
7/3 1.0 writing $200.00
7/4 .5 writing 100.00
7/5 1.0 research 200.00
7/6 1.0 research 200.00
7/7 1.0 writing 200.00
7/26 1.0 research 200.00
7/27 .5 writing 100.00
7/28 .5 writing 100.00
10/3 1.0 research 200.00
10/8 .5 data collection 100.00
10/23 .5 data collection 100.00
10/29 .5 research 100.00
12/21 1.0 writing 200.00
12/27 1.0 writing 200.00
12/28 .5 research 100.00
$ 2,300.00
January - June 1999
Date Time Reason E x e nse
1/23 .5 research $100.00
1/24 .5 research 100.00
1/30 .5 research 100.00
1/31 .5 research 100.00
2/6 1.0 research 200.00
2/7 .5 writing 100.00
2/27 .5 writing 100.00
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 39
2/28 .5 data collection 100.00
3/6 .5 data collection 100.00
3/7 .5 writing 100.00
3/20 .5 writing 100.00
3/21 1.0 writing 200.00
3/27 .5 research 100.00
3/28 .5 data collection 100.00
4/17 .5 data collection 100.00
4/18 .5 research 100.00
4/24 1.0 research 200.00
4/25 1.0 research 200.00
5/17 1.0 writing 200.00
5/18 .5 research 100.00
6/3 .5 writing 100.00
6/6 .5 writing 100.00
6/9 .5 writing 100.00
$2,800.00
July - Dec. 1999
Date Time Reason E x e nse
7/31 .5 research $100.00
8/14 .5 research 100.00
8/15 .5 writing 100.00
9/18 .5 writing 100.00
9/19 .5 writing 100.00
9/25 .5 research 100.00
9/28 .5 research 100.00
10/9 .5 research 100.00
10/10 .5 research 100.00
11/13 .5 research 100.00
11/14 .5 writing 100.00
12/4 .5 research 100.00
12/5 .5 writing 100.00
$1,300.00
January - June 2000
Date Time Reason E x e nse
1/22 .5 research $100.00
1/23 .5 research 100.00
2/5 .5 writing 100.00
2/6 .5 writing 100.00
2/21 .5 research 100.00
2/27 .5 research 100.00
3/14 .5 data collection 100.00
3/15 .5 research 100.00
3/18 .5 writing 100.00
3/19 .5 writing 100.00
4/18 .5 research 100.00
4/19 .5 research 100.00
4/22 .5 research 100.00
4/23 .5 research 100.00
5/6 .5 writing 100.00
5/7 .5 writing 100.00
5/13 .5 research 100.00
$1,700.00
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 40
July - Dec. 2000
Date Time
7/22 .5
7/23 .5
7/29 .5
8/5 .5
8/6 .5
9/12 .5
9/13 .5
10/21 .5
10/22 .5
10/23 .5
11/12 .5
11/18 .5
12/2 .5
01/11/00 - 01/13/00
03/14/00 - 03/16/00
05/09/00 - 05/11/001 [sic]
02/06/01 - 02/08/01
02/13/01 - 02/15/01
04/03/01 - 04/05/01
Reason
research
research
writing
research
research
research
research
writing
writing
writing
research
research
research
Ex ense
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
$1,300.00
165. These ... [documents] were not submitted on any business or personal stationery.
166. Expenses incurred by the Southern Columbia Area School District from
Commonwealth Caterers confirm PULSE retreats were held at the Masonic Lodge,
Elizabethtown, on the following dates:
Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday
Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday
Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday
Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday
Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday
Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday
167. Wilcox did not have any recorded leave from the Southern Columbia Area School
District on the dates when retreats were held at Elizabethtown.
a. Wilcox was in Elizabethtown on these days overseeing the district's Kings
Bridge's PULSE program.
168. Expense reimbursement records on file with Southern Columbia Area confirm Wilcox
received mileage reimbursement payments for his attendance at PULSE training
sessions held in Elizabethtown, PA.
a. These training sessions related to the district's PULSE program.
169. Wilcox's expense records submitted by SCSD include the following mileage
reimbursements for his attendance at PULSE trainings in Elizabethtown, PA.
a. Wilcox received Southern Columbia Area School District check number20593
dated March 8, 2000, in the amount of $295.75 as the result of a mileage
reimbursement he submitted. One hundred four ($104.00) of the $295.75
Wilcox received as part of this reimbursement was for expenses incurred by
him to attend a PULSE retreat held January 11 -13, 2000.
1. Wilcox received reimbursement for 320 miles at a rate of .325¢ per mile
for travel to Elizabethtown on January 11, 12, 13, 2000.
Date
Destination
Miles
Cost x .325¢
01/11/00
Elizabethtown
160
$52.00
01/12/00
Elizabethtown
80
$26.00
01/13/00
Elizabethtown
80
$26.00
Total
$104.00
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 41
g.
2. Wilcox provided the following breakdown of miles traveled for
reimbursement.
170. Wilcox received and sent faxes utilizing fax machines of the SCSD for the benefit of
his private business dealings with Kings Bridge.
171. Throughout his Response to the Findings in the Investigative Complaint, Wilcox
repeatedly avers that he was never a director of Kings Bridge, Inc. (See, Response of
Michael Steven Wilcox to the Findings in the Investigative Complaint, at paragraphs
23, 24, 25 a, 36, 40 d, 72 e, 84 d, 93, 123, 136, 148, 153 a, 162 a, 169 a).
B. Testimony
172. Walter Eugene Brown ( "Brown ") is a former officer of the Staunton, Virginia Police
Department.
a. Respondent, Rembold, and Thacker were involved with Brown in a youth
program known as "PULSAR."
b. PULSAR was incorporated as a non - profit corporation with the name "PULSAR
Incorporated."
(1) Rembold was an incorporator of PULSAR Incorporated.
(2) Thacker was a director of PULSAR Incorporated.
(a) The original bylaws of PULSAR Incorporated provided for Kings
Bridge Incorporated to have a representative on the board of
directors.
c. Respondent attended board meetings of PULSAR Incorporated but was not a
director of that corporation.
d. Respondent was present during conversations in which it was indicated that
Respondent was involved with Kings Bridge, Inc.
e. Respondent told Brown that the material used by PULSAR Incorporated was
the intellectual property of the individuals who ran Kings Bridge, Inc.
f. Respondent proposed to Brown a "pass through" arrangement whereby
PULSAR Incorporated would keep only 10% of the monies it received and
would pass the other 90% through to Kings Bridge, Inc.
The initial bylaws of PULSAR Incorporated required 100 percent Board
approval for its actions.
h. Respondent's "pass through" proposal was discussed by the Board of Directors
of PULSAR Incorporated and was rejected by three Board members.
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 42
Factions developed on the Board of PULSAR Incorporated and in early 1994,
two of the five board members, including Thacker, resigned from the Board of
Directors.
(1) The bylaws of PULSAR Incorporated were amended and no longer
provided for a representative from Kings Bridge Incorporated to serve on
the board of directors.
173. Charles Porter ( "Porter ") served as a school director for the Southern Columbia Area
School District (also referred to herein as "SCSD ") from December of 1993 to
December of 2001.
a. Porter participated in the SCSD's process to hire Respondent as
superintendent.
(1) Exhibit R -1 is an accurate description of what the SCSD School Board
was looking for when filling the position of superintendent in 1998.
(2) Respondent's application submitted for the position indicated past
involvement with the PULSE program but no continuing involvement
with it. (See, Finding 243).
b. Porter was a school director for the SCSD during the entire time Respondent
was the SCSD superintendent.
c. The superintendent of the SCSD reports directly to the SCSD Board of
Directors.
d. The superintendent of the SCSD is the chief administrator and is in charge of
the day -to -day activities of the School District.
(1) The other administrators in the SCSD report to the superintendent.
e. ID -5 is the contract by which Respondent was hired as superintendent of the
SCSD. (See, Findings 11, 205).
f. Paragraph D 3 of the contract permitted Respondent to undertake outside work
provided that Respondent first obtained permission from the SCSD School
Board. (See, Finding 205 d).
g.
Respondent never asked the SCSD School Board for permission to work
outside the School District and be compensated outside the School District.
h. Respondent never requested permission from the SCSD School Board to do
outside compensated consulting work for Kings Bridge Incorporated.
(1) On one occasion, Respondent requested permission to exchange
training services for the PULSE program for the SCSD with Chuck
Rembold.
(a) It was Porter's understanding that this work was to be done for
the SCSD and not for outside compensation.
Respondent never disclosed to Porter that he was receiving compensation from
Kings Bridge Incorporated.
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 43
j. Respondent's duties as superintendent included identifying sources of grant
funds, recommending programs to be funded through grant funds, and applying
for grants.
(1) The signatures of Respondent's name on the following exhibits are
Respondent's signatures: ID -14, pages 3, 5, 28, 39, 41, and 43; ID -16,
pages 9, 10, 11, 12 and 15; ID -17, pages 64 and 67; ID -18, pages 37,
47, 55, 63, 90, 91, 99 and 100; ID-22, pages 7 and 35; ID-23, page 24;
ID -24, pages 3 and 20; and ID -26, pages 1 and 2.
(2) Respondent's initials appear on: ID -9, pages 2 and 6.
(3) ID -24, page 4 bears a signature of the name of Respondent's
predecessor, Brian Balavage.
(4) ID -25, page 5 bears a signature of the name of Respondent's
successor, Alex Dubil.
k. During Porter's term as school director, the SCSD School Board never
participated in the filing of grant applications.
Although Respondent apprised the SCSD School Board of certain grants he
was pursuing, during Porter's term as school director, the SCSD School Board
did not review grant applications or approve the filing of grant applications with
the sole exception of the 2001 "re- filing" of the 21 Century grant application.
(1) When the applications for the grants that are in evidence were being
formulated /submitted, Porter was not aware of what was included in the
grant applications.
m. Other than with respect to the "re- filing" of the 21 Century grant application,
the SCSD School Board took no official actions as to grants except for
accepting the grant funds.
n. The SCSD School Board's agendas, as prepared by Respondent, included line
items for the acceptance of grants for funding of the PULSE program.
o. As superintendent, Respondent made recommendations to the SCSD School
Board that the SCSD participate in the PULSE program.
p. During the time period from July 1998 through July 1, 2000, Porter had never
heard of Kings Bridge Incorporated and was not aware that the SCSD was
engaging Kings Bridge Incorporated for services.
q. The SCSD School Board never approved the hiring of Kings Bridge
Incorporated.
r. Porter first became aware of Kings Bridge Incorporated on or about July 17,
2000, when he saw it listed on the SCSD's bill list for a bill in the amount of
$6,000.
(1) ID -9, page 6 is the invoice for the bill that Porter questioned.
(2) Porter questioned the SCSD Business Manager, Joe Springer, and
Respondent about the bill.
s. Porter voted to approve payment of the invoice at ID -9, page 6.
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 44
(1) At the time Porter voted to approve payments to Kings Bridge
Incorporated, he did not know that Respondent was listed in corporate
filings as a director.
(2) At the time Porter voted to approve payments to Kings Bridge
Incorporated, he did not know that Respondent was receiving
compensation for services rendered to Kings Bridge Incorporated.
t. After Porter questioned the Kings Bridge Incorporated bill in July 2000, the
SCSD received a bill for subsequent PULSE training from Mainstream
Counseling.
(1) This bill is in evidence as ID -9, page 10 and is in the amount of
$11,000.00.
u. The SCSD School Board never approved the hiring of Mainstream Counseling.
v. In late January or early February 2001 Porter began raising questions regarding
the contents of the 21 Century grant application.
w. Respondent indicated in an executive session of the SCSD School Board that
the PULSE program was integral to the 21 Century grant.
x. Porter obtained corporate documents pertaining to Kings Bridge Incorporated
from the Commonwealth of Virginia Corporation Commission, which documents
are included in ID -6.
(1) Annual Reports filed on behalf of Kings Bridge Incorporated with the
Commonwealth of Virginia Corporation Commission for the years 1993-
2000 list Respondent as a director of the corporation.
(2) The Annual Report filed for 1999 reflected a change in Respondent's
address.
(a) Respondent was listed as being a director of Kings Bridge
Incorporated both before and after the address change. (See,
Finding 206 h).
Y. On April 9, 2001, Porter informed the SCSD School Board of SCSD grants
involving contracts with Kings Bridge Incorporated and provided the SCSD
School Board with the corporation documents he had received reflecting that
Respondent was a director of Kings Bridge Incorporated.
(1) Thereafter, Respondent was replaced as Project Director for the 21 st
Century grant, and the PULSE program was no longer included as a
program under the grant.
z. After Respondent terminated his employment with the SCSD, the SCSD did not
do any further business with Kings Bridge Incorporated or Mainstream
Counseling during Porter's term of office.
aa. ID -50 consists of two policies adopted by the SCSD School Board on March 8,
1999. (See, Finding 237).
bb. At the time Porter participated in favorable evaluations of Respondent, Porter
did not know that Respondent was listed in the corporate filings of a SCSD
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 45
174. Joseph Springer ( "Springer ") is employed as the Business Manager of the SCSD and
has served in that capacity since January 11, 1999.
a. Springer plays no role in the SCSD's acquisition of professional services.
b. SCS ger plays no role with regard to identifying grant funding sources for the
c. Springer has played a limited role with regard to the acquisition of grants for the
SCSD consisting of: supplying information when requested to do so, being
listed on grant applications as the SCSD financial officer, and signing periodic
reports regarding the processing of expenditures of grant monies.
(1) As to the specific grants under review in this case, Springer played no
role in: generating grant applications; selecting service providers for
grant programs; selecting or recommending the establishment of the
PULSE program or PULSE training in the SCSD; recommending the
hiring of Kings Bridge Incorporated as a consultant in relation to the
PULSE program or PULSE training; selecting or recommending the
inclusion of Kings Bridge Incorporated in grant applications submitted to
state and federal officials by the SCSD; or selecting Mainstream
Counseling, Inc. to provide services to the SCSD.
d. The SCSD superintendent is the ultimate authority in charge of the day -to -day
operations of the SCSD.
e. During Respondent's tenure as SCSD superintendent, the Business Manager,
the director of special education and student services, all principals, all other
SCSD administrators, and the secretary to the superintendent reported to
Respondent.
f. As SCSD superintendent, Respondent asked Springer to provide information
for SCSD grant applications.
(1) The information that Springer provided to Respondent for grant
applications was subsequently included in such applications.
During the time period from the commencement of Springer's employment with
the SCSD in 1999 through July of 2001 when Respondent left employment
with the SCSD, Springer regularly attended the SCSD School Board public
meetings.
(1) Springer did not attend all executive sessions of the SCSD School
Board.
h. At the public meetings of the SCSD School Board attended by Springer,
Respondent never disclosed having any relationship with Kings Bridge
Incorporated.
g.
vendor, Kings Bridge Incorporated, as a director of the corporation and was
receiving compensation from Kings Bridge Incorporated.
Respondent did not disclose to Springer whether he (Respondent) was being
compensated for services rendered to Kings Bridge Incorporated.
During the time period from the commencement of Springer's employment with
the SCSD in 1999 through July of 2001 when Respondent left employment
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 46
P.
q.
r.
with the SCSD, Springer was never present at a SCSD School Board meeting
where the School Board approved the filing of a grant application as opposed to
accepting the money.
k. During the time period from the commencement of Springer's employment with
the SCSD in 1999 through July of 2001 when Respondent left employment
with the SCSD, the SCSD School Board acted to accept grants that included
funding for the PULSE program, and the SCSD paid for PULSE training.
(1) The SCSD does not currently use the PULSE program.
In his capacity as SCSD Business Manager, Springer was involved in
processing SCSD payments to Kings Bridge Incorporated for PULSE training.
(1) The SCSD has not paid for any services by Kings Bridge Incorporated
or Mainstream Counseling, Inc. since Respondent left employment with
the SCSD.
m. ID -9 consists of true and correct copies of SCSD records including duplicate
check copies, invoices, and cancelled checks for payments by the SCSD to
Kings Bridge Incorporated and Mainstream Counseling, Inc. for PULSE
training. (See, Finding 209).
n. ID -9, page 2 is an invoice from Kings Bridge Incorporated to the SCSD for
PULSE team training.
(1)
(2)
Respondent brought the invoice at ID -9, page 2 to Springer.
The invoice at ID -9, page 2 bears Respondent's initials together with the
word "OK."
o. The presence of Respondent's initials on the invoice at ID -9, page 2 indicates
Respondent's approval of this invoice as an invoice he was directly involved
with.
(1) Respondent did not initial all invoices received by the SCSD, but only
the invoices that he was directly involved with.
(2) When an invoice is received at the SCSD, the person who is in charge
of the applicable area is required to establish that the services were
received and that the invoice may be paid.
SCSD expenditures are tracked against budgets under various account
numbers.
Account numbers appear at the top of duplicate check copies and are noted on
invoices.
Occasional disparities between account numbers appearing at the top of
duplicate check copies and on corresponding invoices are due to corrections or
adjustments that were made.
(1) Springer testified that of the account numbers noted on the invoice at
ID -9, page 2 and at the top of the duplicate check copy at ID -9, page 1,
the account numbers noted on the 'Post -It" note on the invoice would
probably be a more accurate reflection of the grant funds utilized to pay
the invoice.
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 47
s. Spreadsheets were also prepared by Springer's subordinate(s) under
Springer's supervision to record the account numbers for particular
expenditures.
(1) For a given expenditure, the account codes listed on the invoice and
SCSD check should match the account codes listed on the
spreadsheet.
t. The Mainstream Counseling, Inc. bill at ID -9, page 10 was paid by the SCSD.
u. The checks from the SCSD to Kings Bridge Incorporated at ID -9, pages 12 -19
were negotiated.
v. The check from the SCSD to Mainstream Counseling Inc. at ID -9, pages20 -21
was negotiated.
w. ID -10 consists of true and correct copies of Statements of Financial Interests
and amended Statements of Financial Interests filed by Respondent with the
SCSD for calendar years 1998, 1999 and 2000. (See, Findings 122 - 123,126,
129, 210).
(1) All of the documents in ID -10 bear Respondent's signature.
x. ID -11 consists of true and correct copies of SCSD records of the W -2 Wage
and Tax Statements issued by the SCSD to Respondent for the years 1998,
1999, 2000 and 2001. (See, Finding 211).
y. ID-15 consists of true and correct copies of various SCSD records pertaining to
the 1999 -2000 Safe Schools Initiative Grant #3 in the amount of $28,153.00
received by the SCSD. (See, Finding 215).
(1) ID -15, page 2 is a spreadsheet maintained by one of Springer's
subordinates tracking the expenditures of this grant using account
codes.
(2) There were three account codes used for expenditures of this grant,
specifically, 1490- 112 -203, 1490 - 610 -203, and 1490 - 390 -203. (See,
Finding 215 a).
(a) Of the numbers comprising each of these codes, the final
number, number 203, indicates that the expenditure is for this
particular Safe Schools Initiative grant.
Kings Bridge Incorporated was paid 3 payments from this grant, which
payments were in the amounts of $1,777.16, $7,000.00, and $6,000.00,
totaling $14,777.16. (See, Finding 215 b).
(a) The $1,777.16 payment to Kings Bridge Incorporated was made
as part of SCSD Check #20705. (ID -15, page 2; ID -9, pages 1-
2). (See, Finding 215 b).
(b) The $7,000.00 payment to Kings Bridge Incorporated was made
by SCSD Check # 21037. (ID -15, page 2; ID -9, pages 3 -4).
(See, Finding 215 b).
(3)
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 48
(c) The $6,000.00 payment to Kings Bridge Incorporated was made
by SCSD Check #21223. (ID -15, page 2; ID -9, pages 5 -6).
(See, Finding 215 b).
(4) Respondent signed travel expense vouchers at ID -15, pages 9, 13, 15,
and 17 authorizing payment of expenses incurred by others with respect
to PULSE training.
z. ID-19 consists of true and correct copies of various SCSD records pertaining to
the 1999 -2000 Safe Schools Initiative Grant #1 in the amount of $20,000.00
received by the SCSD. (See, Finding 219).
(1) ID -19, page 1 is a spreadsheet maintained by one of Springer's
subordinates tracking the expenditures of this grant using account
codes.
(2) There were five account codes used for expenditures of this grant,
specifically, 1490- 112- 201 -20, 1490- 390 - 201 -20, 1490- 580 - 201 -20,
1490 - 610 - 201 -20, and 1490 - 890 - 201 -20. (See, Finding 219 a).
(a) Of the numbers comprising each of these codes, the third
number, number 201, indicates that the expenditure is for this
particular Safe Schools Initiative grant.
Kings Bridge Incorporated was paid 2 payments from this grant, which
payments were in the amounts of $7,000.00 and $422.84, totaling
$7,422.84. (See, Finding 219 b).
(a) The $7,000.00 payment to Kings Bridge Incorporated was made
by SCSD Check # 20175. (ID -19, page 1; ID -9, pages 7 -8).
(See, Finding 209 a).
(b) The $422.84 payment to Kings Bridge Incorporated was made as
part of SCSD Check #20705. (ID -19, page 1; ID -9, pages 1 -2).
(4) Respondent submitted a Conference Travel Expense Voucher claiming
mileage and reimbursement for pizza as to the PULSE training on March
14 -March 16, 2000, at Elizabethtown, PA. (ID -15, page 3; ID -19, page
2). (See, Finding 219 c).
(a) The account codes on the voucher and duplicate check copy
indicate that these expenses were reimbursed to Respondent
from this particular grant (Code 201). (ID -15, page 3; ID -19,
page 2). (See, Finding 219 c).
ID -19, page 4 consists of a memorandum dated September 27, 1999,
from Respondent as Superintendent of SCSD to "All Pulse Team
Members' regarding the PULSE Training /Preparation Schedule for
planning on October 21 -22, 1999, in Bloomsburg; Adult Team
experiences /practices on January 11 -13, 2000, in Elizabethtown; and
the Student Retreat on March 12 -14, 2000, in Elizabethtown, PA. (See,
Finding 219 d).
(3)
(5)
aa. ID-20 consists of true and correct copies of various SCSD records pertaining to
the 1999 -2000 Safe Schools Initiative Grant #2 in the amount of $26,400.00
received by the SCSD. (See, Finding 220).
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 49
(1) ID -20, page 1 is a spreadsheet maintained by one of Springer's
subordinates tracking the expenditures of this grant using account
codes.
(2) There were four account codes used for expenditures of this grant,
specifically, 1490 - 112 - 202 -20, 1490 - 390 - 202 -10, 1490 - 390 - 202 -20,
and 1490 - 580 - 202 -20. (See, Finding 220 a).
(a) Of the numbers comprising each of these codes, the third
number, number 202, indicates that the expenditure is for this
particular Safe Schools Initiative grant.
Kings Bridge Incorporated was paid 1 payment from this grant, which
payment was in the amount of $3,200.00. (See, Finding 220 b).
(a) The $3,200.00 payment to Kings Bridge Incorporated was made
as part of SCSD Check # 20705. (ID -20, page 1; ID -9, pages 1-
2). (See, Finding 220 b(1)).
(4) Respondent's signature appears on: ID -20, pages 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11.
(7/15/03 Tr. at 249). (See, Finding 220 c).
bb. ID-21 consists of true and correct copies of various SCSD records pertaining to
the 2000 -2001 Safe Schools Initiative Grant #4 in the amount of $22,800.00
received by the SCSD. (See, Finding 221).
(1) ID -21, page 1 is a spreadsheet maintained by one of Springer's
subordinates tracking the expenditures of this grant using account
codes.
(3)
(2) There were five account codes used for expenditures of this grant,
specifically, 1490 - 112 - 204 -20, 1490 - 390 - 204 -20, 1490 - 580 - 204 -20,
1490 - 610 - 204 -20, and 1490 - 750 - 204 -20. (See, Finding 221 a).
Mainstream Counseling, Inc. was paid 1 payment from this grant, which
payment was in the amount of $11,000.00. (See, Finding 221 b).
(a) The $11,000.00 payment to Mainstream Counseling, Inc. was
made by SCSD Check # 22632. (ID -21, page 1; ID -9, pages 9-
10). (See, Finding 221 b).
(4) Respondent's signature appears on ID-21, page 3. (7/15/03 Tr. at 250-
251). (See, Finding 221 c).
cc. ID -26 consists of true and correct copies of SCSD records pertaining to the
2002 -2004 SCSD 21 Century Community Learning Center grant.
(3)
dd. ID -29 consists of true and correct copies of SCSD records.
(1) ID -29, pages 2 -4 consist of true and correct copies of SCSD records
pertaining to Respondent's attendance at the Superintendents'
Technology Leadership Academy at the Hershey Convention Center on
July 24 -27, 2000. (See, Finding 229 a).
(a) ID -29, page 2 is a check duplicate copy of SCSD check #21836
dated September 11, 2000, in the amount of $200.00, by which
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 50
Respondent's registration fee for the academy was paid by the
SCSD. (See, Finding 229 a(1)).
(b) ID -29, pages 3 -4 are copies of a purchase order and Invoice
#LW1868 from the Montgomery County Intermediate Unit to the
SCSD for Respondent's registration fee for the academy. (See,
Finding 229 a(2)).
(2) ID -29, page 6 is a letter dated April 24, 2002, from Respondent to
Springer, signed by Respondent, regarding the return to the SCSD of a
laptop computer Respondent had received at the Superintendents'
Technology Leadership Academy. (See, Finding 229 b).
ID -29, pages 10 and 11 are copies of Invoice #111123 dated November
18, 1998, from West Greene School District to SCSD in the amount of
$1000.00 for "Training for 10 teachers at PULSE retreat November 11,
12, 13, 1998." (See, Finding 229 c).
(a) This Invoice is addressed to the SCSD in care of Respondent.
ee. ID -29, pages 8 and 9 are copies of the SCSD check and duplicate check copy,
# 18017 in the amount of $1,000.00 payable to West Greene School District in
payment of the invoice referenced in the Finding immediately above. (See,
Finding 229 d).
ff.
99
hh. ID-34 consists of true and correct copies of minutes of various meetings of the
SCSD School Board. (See, Findings 30, 233).
JJ
(3)
ID-29, pages 12 and 13 are copies of an accounting ledger for the 1998 -1999
Drug Free Schools Grant received by the SCSD.
ID -33 consists of true and correct copies of records of the SCSD pertaining to
long distance telephone charges billed to the SCSD and certain
reimbursements made by Respondent for personal telephone calls.
(1) The highlighted calls are those that Respondent identified as personal
telephone calls that he had placed.
(2) SCSD employees were permitted to use SCSD telephones for personal
long distance telephone calls provided the user reimburse the SCSD for
the charges.
ii. The Superintendents' Technology Leadership Academy (also referred to as the
"TLA conference ") was a conference sponsored by the Pennsylvania
Department of Education in order to advance the technology and education
level of superintendents.
(1) Respondent attended the TLA conference.
(2) Respondent received a laptop computer at the TLA conference.
When Respondent left employment with the SCSD, he took the laptop
computer he had received at the TLA conference with him.
(1) Springer does not recall having any discussion with Respondent
regarding the laptop computer as Respondent was leaving employment
with the SCSD.
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 51
(a) Springer was on vacation the week that Respondent left the
SCSD.
(2) Upon returning from vacation, Springer had a discussion with the new
interim superintendent as to the computer that the interim
superintendent would use.
(a) This discussion gave rise to a question in Springer's mind as to
where the laptop computer taken by Respondent belonged.
kk. Respondent returned the laptop computer to the SCSD in April 2002 when
Respondent sent the letter to Springer that is in evidence as ID -29, page 6.
(See, Finding 229 b).
II. The laptop computer was not in the SCSD's possession from June 30, 2001,
until April 25, 2002 (see, Finding 115).
mm. The superintendent of the SCSD accrues vacation leave, personal days, and
sick leave.
nn. When SCSD employees are absent from work, they must submit an absence
request form.
oo. ID -31 consists of true and correct copies of SCSD leave records for the
Respondent. (See, Finding 231).
(1) ID -31, page 1 is a summary of leave allocation and usage by
Respondent for the 1998 -1999 school year.
(2) ID -31, pages 2 -16 are absence request forms signed and submitted by
Respondent.
ID -31, pages 17 -19 consist of the summary of employee absences for
Respondent for the 2000 -2001 school year.
pp.
qq.
(3)
Springer testified that to the best of his knowledge, the SCSD never put out for
public bid any requests for proposals in relation to PULSE training services.
Respondent asked Springer whether bidding was required for training services
and Springer replied that bidding was not required for training services.
(1) Springer's response was based upon the Public School Code and not
the Ethics Act.
rr. Respondent told Springer that he (Respondent) was a trainer for the PULSE
program and that he had performed services like PULSE training in the past.
(1) It was Springer's understanding that Respondent would not be
compensated for training services for the SCSD other than by his salary
as SCSD superintendent.
(a) Respondent gave no indication that he would be receiving
compensation from Kings Bridge Incorporated, the entity that
would be performing the PULSE training.
(2) Springer told Respondent that he did not see a problem with
Respondent's work as a trainer for the PULSE program in that
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 52
Respondent would not be receiving payment for PULSE training for the
SCSD.
175. Lynn Cromley ( "Cromley ") is employed by the Central Susquehanna Intermediate Unit
as a Director under the Center for Schools and Safe Communities and has served in
that capacity since 1995.
a. The Safe Schools Initiative is a state - funded competitive grant program with the
purposes of achieving school safety and reducing or eliminating youth violence.
b. ID -16, ID -17 and ID -18 consist of certified copies of records of the Center for
Schools and Communities /Central Susquehanna Intermediate Unit -16, which
records pertain to Safe Schools Initiative Grants awarded to the SCSD. (See,
Findings 216 -218).
c. ID -16 pertains to the first round of funding awarded to the SCSD under the
1999 -2000 Safe Schools Initiative. (See, Finding 216).
(1) ID -16, page 6 is a proposed budget submitted by the SCSD.
(a) The proposed budget includes a request for grant funds in the
amount of $10,500.00 for "contracted services."
(2) ID -16, pages 7 -8 consist of a letter notifying the SCSD that it had
received grant funding in the amount of $20,000.00.
ID-16, page 9 consists of the executed Letter of Agreement between the
Central Susquehanna Intermediate Unit and the SCSD for Safe School
Funds for the 1999 -2000 school year.
(a) A Letter of Agreement is a legal agreement between the
intermediate unit and local education agency governing the
provision and expenditure of grant funds.
(b) Under the Safe Schools Initiative program, a Letter of Agreement
must be executed prior to the disbursement of funds.
(4) ID -16, page 10 is an "invoice" submitted by the SCSD for the 1999-
2000 school year.
(a) Invoices must be filed by the grant recipient in order to receive
reimbursements for expenditures under the grant.
(b) During the 1999 -2000 school year, grant recipients were
required to file invoices on a quarterly basis throughout the term
of the grant funding.
ID -16, pages 16 -79 consist of the completed application submitted by
the SCSD for the first round of funding under the 1999 -2000 Safe
Schools Initiative. (See, Finding 216 b).
(a) The application indicates that the program for which grant
funding is requested is the PULSE program.
(b) At ID-17, page 18 Respondent is listed as the contact person for
the grant.
(3)
(5)
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 53
(i)
An applicant is required to submit a project summary as part of
the grant application.
ID-16, pages 19 -20 consist of the project summary portion of this
grant application for funding the PULSE program.
ID-16, pages 22 -23 consist of the budget narrative portion of the
grant application, which provides extensive detail on how
expenditures will be made under the grant.
(1) The budget narrative identifies specific contractor(s) to be
utilized and the amount of money to be paid to such
contractor(s).
ID -16, pages 24 -25 consist of a needs statement, which is a
required component of a grant application and which identifies
the need that the applicant has for the project.
ID -16, pages 26 -27 consist of the required "results, objectives
and evaluation" portion of the grant application identifying
specifically what the applicant is trying to accomplish.
(1) This particular grant application only pertained to the
PULSE program.
(h) ID -16, pages 27 -29 consist of the required "design and operation
of the program" portion of the grant application.
The grant application identified Kings Bridge Incorporated as the
contractor that would implement the PULSE program at the
SCSD.
(j) The grant applicant is required to submit research or information
on the program to be funded.
(k) Attachment D to the application pertaining to activities and
strategies is a required submission.
d. ID -18 pertains to the second round of funding awarded to the SCSD under the
1999 -2000 Safe Schools Initiative. (See, Finding 218).
(1) The budget narrative portion of the grant application identified the
PULSE, Peer Mediation, Responsive Classroom, and Peer
HelpingNiolence Prevention programs as covered by the grant. (See,
Findings 69, 218 a -b).
(2) The budget narrative portion of the grant application identified the
following contractors and consultants as receiving funds for programs
under the grant: Kings Bridge, Incorporated for the PULSE program;
James Madison University for the Peer Mediation program;
Comprehensive Health Education Foundation for the Violence
Prevention program; and Northeast Foundation for Children for the
Responsive Classroom program. (See, Finding 69).
(a) The budget form and budget narrative indicate a total of
$44,840.00 of grant funds without matching funds for contract
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 54
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
consultants, with $7,840.00 of the total being allocated to Kings
Bridge Incorporated for the PULSE program, $5,000.00 being
allocated to James Madison University for the Peer Mediation
program, $2,500.00 being allocated to the Comprehensive
Health Education Foundation for the Violence Prevention
program, and $29,500.00 being allocated to Northeast
Foundation for Children for the Responsive Classroom program.
(See, Findings 69, 218 h).
The total grant request was $75,000.00.
ID -18, pages 13, 15 identified the PULSE program as part of the grant
project and Kings Bridge Incorporated as a consultant for the PULSE
program.
ID -18, pages 40 -47, 48 -55, 56 -63, and 64 -71 consist of required
Memoranda of Understanding between the SCSD and the law
enforcement entities that respond to issues in the district, outlining how
school safety or violence issues will be handled. (See, Finding 218 d).
The grant award was in the amount of $26,400.00.
1D-18, pages 81 -82 consist of amendments to the original budget, which
amendments were submitted by the SCSD on or about December 21,
1999.
(a) The amended budget form and budget narrative reflect the
$26,400 grant awarded to the SCSD. (See, Finding 218 k(1)).
(b) Per the amendments, the Peer Mediation and Peer
Helping /Violence Prevention programs were eliminated, and only
the PULSE program and the Responsive Classroom programs
were to be implemented. (See, Finding 218(k)(2)).
(c) Per the revised budget, the amount allocated to Consultants and
Contracts was $22,000.00, consisting of $14,000.00 from grant
funds and $8,000.00 from matching funds of the SCSD. (See,
Finding 218 k(3)).
(d) The grant portion of the allocation for PULSE training was
$7,000.00, and the grant portion of the allocation for Responsive
Classroom Training was $7,000.00. (See, Finding 218 k(4)).
(e) The revised Budget Narrative did not indicate how the SCSD
matching funds in the amount of $8,000.00 would be allocated.
(See, Finding 218 k(5)).
(8) ID -18, pages 76 -79 consist of a letter dated March 23, 2000, from Julia
Steele, Administrative Secretary for the SCSD to Leah Harry of the
Center for Safe Schools, with attachments, submitting another budget
revision for the grant. (See, Finding 218 1).
(a) The stated reason for the request was to have release time for
instructional staff to further their training in PULSE and the
Responsive Classroom. (See, Finding 218 1(1)).
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 55
(
(b) Per the revised budget, the amount allocated to Consultants and
Contracts was $19,200.00, consisting of $11,200.00 from grant
funds and $8,000.00 from matching funds of the SCSD. (See,
Finding 218 1(2)).
(c) The grant portion of the allocation for PULSE training was
$4,200.00, and the grant portion of the allocation for Responsive
Classroom Training was $7,000.00. (See, Finding 218 1(3)).
(d) The revised Budget Narrative did not indicate how the SCSD
matching funds in the amount of $8,000.00 would be allocated.
(See, Finding 218 1(4)).
ID -18, pages 89 -90 consist of the required executed Letter of
Agreement between the Central Susquehanna Intermediate Unit and the
SCSD for the second round of Safe School Funding for the 1999 -2000
school year.
e. 1D -17 pertains to the funding awarded to the SCSD under the 2000 -2001 Safe
Schools Initiative.
(1) ID -17, pages 2 -41 consist of the completed application submitted by the
SCSD on or about July 6, 2000.
(a) ID -17, page 4 consists of the required cover sheet to the grant
application.
(1) Respondent was identified as the "program director" for
the grant.
(2) The program director was the contact person for the grant
and was responsible for ensuring that the grant was
implemented.
(b) ID -17, page 5 is the required project summary portion of the
grant application.
(c) 1D -17, page 6 consists of the proposed budget summary portion
of this grant application.
(1) The total grant request was $60,000.00.
(d) ID -17, pages 7 -8 consist of the budget narrative portion of the
grant application, which provides a detailed breakdown of
expenditures for consultants and contractors.
(1) The budget narrative indicated a total of $27,000.00 for
contract consultants, with $10,000.00 of the total
allocated to Kings Bridge Incorporated for a Middle School
PULSE program.
(e) The project narrative, needs assessment, and design and
operation portions of the grant application are required
components of a grant application.
(f) ID -17, page 15 indicates that the PULSE program was to be part
of the funding request.
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 56
(1) ID -17, pages 7, 17 indicate that Kings Bridge
Incorporated was the contractor that would implement a
PULSE program at the SCSD. (See, Finding 217 h(1)).
(g) This particular grant application pertained to more than one
program.
(4) ID -17, pages 49 -50, 53 -56 are "invoices" that were submitted by the
SCSD for the 2000 -2001 school year funding.
(a) During the 2000 -2001 school year, grant recipients were
permitted to submit monthly invoices if they chose to do so.
ID -17, pages 51 -52 consist of amendments to the original budget and
budget narrative, which amendments were submitted by the SCSD on
October 17, 2000.
(a) The amended budget and budget narrative reflected the $22,800
grant awarded to the SCSD.
(b) Per the amendments, two programs were eliminated, and only
the PULSE and Responsive Classroom programs were to be
implemented.
(c) The amendments included only two contractors: Northeast
Foundation for Children for the Responsive Classroom program
at a cost of $3,000.00, and Mainstream Counseling Services for
the PULSE program at a cost of $12,000.00. (See, Finding 217
k(3)).
(1) The allocation for the PULSE program was $2,000.00
higher than it had been in the initial grant application.
(6) ID -17, pages 64 -66 consist of a letter dated February 22, 2001, from
Respondent to Ellen Adler of the Center for Safe Schools, with
(h) ID -17, pages 21 -26 consist of "outcomes, objectives and
evaluation charts, which were required submissions for the
2000 -2001 grant applications.
(1) These charts identify the objectives the applicant was
trying to achieve, the strategies that were to be used, and
the persons responsible for the implementation of those
strategies.
ID -17, pages 27 -41 consist of required attachments to the grant
application.
(i)
(j) ID -17, pages 30 -31 consist of required letters of assurance.
(2) The grant award was in the amount of $22,800.00.
(3) ID -17, pages 46 -47 consist of the required executed Letter of
Agreement between the Central Susquehanna Intermediate Unit and the
SCSD for Safe School Funds for the 2000 -2001 school year.
(5)
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 57
attachments, requesting anther budget revision for the grant. (See,
Finding 2171).
(a) The stated reasons for the request included increased food
costs, a reduction in adult participants, and an increase in travel
costs.
(b) The allocation for Mainstream Counseling Services was reduced
from $12,000.00 to $11,000.00, and the allocation for Northeast
Foundation for Children was reduced from $3,000.00 to
$2,500.00.
(1) The allocation for the PULSE program was $1,000.00
higher than it had been in the initial grant application.
f. Neither the Central Susquehanna Intermediate Unit nor the Center for Schools
and Safe Communities plays any role in telling the grant applicant what
programs to fund or what contractors /consultants to use under the grant
program.
g.
The Central Susquehanna Intermediate Unit /Center for Schools and Safe
Communities does not play any role in telling the grant applicant /recipient what
program changes to make when a funding reduction takes place.
h. The Central Susquehanna Intermediate Unit /Center for Schools and Safe
Communities did not play any role in choosing Kings Bridge, Incorporated as a
contractor under the SCSD Safe Schools Initiative Grants.
176. Sally Hitz ( "Hitz ") is employed by the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and
Delinquency (PCCD) as Manager of Grant Programs and has served in that capacity
since October of 1998.
a. The PCCD oversees the administration of part of the Safe and Drug Free
Schools program.
b. 1D-14 consists of certified copies of records of the PCCD pertaining to Subgrant
Number 98 -SC -01 -9581 awarded to the SCSD. (See, Finding 214).
(1) The grant application was received at PCCD on June 15, 1999.
(a) The total amount requested by the SCSD was $28,153.00.
(b) The PULSE program was listed as the Project Title for the grant
application.
ID -14, page 3 is a required Consortium Participation Agreement.
ID -14, page 4 is a budget summarizing expenditures under the grant.
(a) The total amount allocated for consultants was $10,500.00.
(b) This version of the budget summary reflects changes made at
the request of PCCD from the initial request at ID -14, page 6.
(4) ID -14, page 7 is a detailed budget with specific expenditures under the
grant.
(2)
(3)
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 58
(a) PCCD staff made some deletions on ID -14, page 7 but did not
make any changes in relation to consultants.
(5) ID -14, page 16 is the revised detailed budget reflecting the changes
made by hand at ID -14, page 7.
(6) ID -14, page 4 (back) together with ID -14, pages 19 -20 consist of a
required project description.
(a) The PULSE program was the only program listed in this grant
application.
(1) The records suggest that a DARE program had at one
time been included.
(b) The PCCD does not request or dictate that grant applicants use
specific programs.
The Grant Application included "Standard Subgrant Conditions"
commencing at ID -14, page 29, which set forth terms and conditions
that the applicant agreed to when applying for the grant funds.
(a) The Standard Subgrant Conditions included conflict of interest
provisions and integrity provisions at ID -14, page 30, paragraph d
and pages 33 (back) -34, paragraph aa.
(8) ID -14, pages 36 -37 consists of a formal letter notifying he SCSD that it
was awarded a grant in the amount of $28,153.00 for the PULSE
program for the project period 9/15/99 to 6/30/00. (See, Finding 214 i).
(a) At the bottom of the letter is a signature line for acceptance on
behalf of the subgrantee (grant recipient), which was the SCSD.
(b) It is required that a signature be affixed accepting the grant on
behalf of the subgrantee.
ID -14, page 39 is one of the required quarterly fiscal reports that must
be filed by a subgrantee.
(7)
(
177. Lonnie Woomer ( "Woomer ") is Executive Director and the sole shareholder of
Mainstream Counseling, Inc.
a. Mainstream Counseling, Inc. is a licensed outpatient drug and alcohol facility.
b. Woomer was first introduced to the PULSE program by Art Waleksi in the
summer of 1994.
(1) Waleski is the assistant principal of Huntingdon Area School District.
c. Woomer first met the Respondent on or about March 1995 at the first PULSE
student retreat held for the Huntingdon Area School District.
(1) Wilcox was a facilitator at this retreat.
d. Respondent was one of the individuals from whom Woomer received
information regarding Kings Bridge Incorporated.
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 59
e. Respondent never represented to Woomer that he (Respondent) was an
officer, director, shareholder or other corporate owner or manager of Kings
Bridge Incorporated.
f. Woomer was aware that Respondent was an author of the PULSE program,
that Respondent's doctoral thesis was used in the PULSE program, and that
Respondent was interested in preserving the integrity of the programs that he
offered.
g.
In 1997, an organizational chart was developed that put Mainstream
Counseling, Inc. at the top of the chart and Kings Bridge Incorporated under
Mainstream Counseling, Inc.
(1) This organizational chart was created with Mainstream Counseling, Inc.
at the top to enhance the prospects of achieving "exemplary program
status" for the PULSE program from the federal government.
h. Woomer participated in discussions with some combination of Respondent,
Rembold and Thacker about formalizing a relationship between Mainstream
Counseling, Inc. and Kings Bridge Incorporated.
In November 1999 Woomer told representatives of Kings Bridge Incorporated
that she would be willing to formalize a contract between Mainstream
Counseling Inc. and to work with both the SCSD and West Greene School
District subject to the following two conditions: (1) that there would be two
contracts, one between the two corporate entities and the other with Woomer
individually for her work as a trainer; and (2) that Woomer would receive
assurances that Respondent and Rembold were no longer on the corporate
structure of Kings Bridge Incorporated.
(1) At that time, Woomer assumed but did not know for certain that
Respondent was on the corporate structure of Kings Bridge
Incorporated.
(2) Woomer was told that the above conditions would be met.
(3) Woomer is not certain that Respondent was present during this
conversation.
(a) From November 1999 until June 2001, Woomer's recollection
was that Respondent was present at the November 1999
meeting.
(b) In June 2001 Woomer questioned her recollection that
Respondent had been present at the November 1999 meeting.
(1) Woomer questioned her own recollection in part because
Respondent stated that he did not recall being at that
meeting.
(2) Respondent also told Woomer that he (Respondent) had
requested to be removed from the board of Kings Bridge
Incorporated.
During the year following the November 1999 meeting, it was Woomer's belief
that her conditions had been met, based upon statements made by Rembold
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 60
that Rembold and Respondent were not involved in the corporate structure of
Kings Bridge Incorporated.
k. ID -35 is a true and correct copy of the contract dated December 1, 1999,
between Mainstream Counseling and Kings Bridge Incorporated. (See, Finding
234).
(1) The contract is signed by Thacker and Woomer.
(2) Under the terms of the contract, Kings Bridge Incorporated was the
"Consultant" and would do all of the work associated with program
development and planning, organizing and conducting the PULSE
seminars and Mainstream Counseling, Inc. would bill the appropriate
school district and oversee the arrangements made by Kings Bridge
Incorporated. (See, Finding 234).
As an individual, Woomer also entered into a separate written contract with
Kings Bridge Incorporated regarding Woomer's services as a facilitator /trainer.
(1) Woomer received her compensation as a facilitator /trainer directly from
Kings Bridge Incorporated.
m. Some PULSE training sessions were "consolidated" training sessions including
multiple school districts.
n. ID-27 consists of true and correct copies of records of Mainstream Counseling,
Inc., which records include invoices generated by Mainstream Counseling to
school districts and Kings Bridge Incorporated invoices generated to
Mainstream Counseling under the terms of the December 1, 1999, contract
between Kings Bridge Incorporated and Mainstream Counseling. (See, Finding
227).
(1) Most of the invoices from Mainstream Counseling to school districts
specifically included an administrative fee.
(a) Although not referenced in ID -35, it had been agreed that
Mainstream Counseling would get a 5% administrative fee for its
services.
(2) Kings Bridge Incorporated provided Woomer with the figures to list on
the invoices for PULSE training.
During the period from December 1999 through December 2000, the
billing arrangement between Kings Bridge Incorporated orated and Mainstream
Counseling was repeatedly used for PULSE for the West
Greene School District but not for the SCSD, even as to consolidated
training session(s) involving both school districts. (ID -27, pages 1 -30).
(See, Finding 227 a(1)).
(a) Woomer testified that Rembold had asked her to do the billing
arrangement for West Greene School District but Respondent
had not asked her to do so.
(3)
(4) Mainstream Counseling did not provide billing services for PULSE
programs for the SCSD until February 2001, at which time it performed
one such transaction. (ID -27, pages 35 -41).
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 61
The invoice to the SCSD did not specifically reference an administrative
fee but did in fact include such. (ID -27, pages 35 -39).
o. Woomer does not recall any contacts or conversations with Respondent
regarding the inclusion of Mainstream Counseling as a consultant/contractoron
the amended Budget Narrative for the SCSD's 2000 -2001 Safe Schools
Initiative Grant, in place of Kings Bridge Incorporated. (ID -17, pages 7, 60).
q.
(5)
(6)
(7)
The February 2001 billing to the SCSD was generated at the request of
the Respondent.
The invoice from Mainstream Counseling to SCSD at ID -27, page 35,
indicates a deduction for an in -kind contribution for food and a trainer.
p. ID -8, page 60 is a check dated January 25, 2000, from Kings Bridge Inc. to
Woomer in the amount of $3,000.00. (See, Finding 208 j).
(1) This check was payment to Woomer for her work at the consolidated
PULSE training that occurred January 11 -13, 2000.
(2) Respondent, Art Waleski, Brian Jackson, and Linda Jones were also at
the PULSE training on January 11 -13, 2000.
(a) Similar checks were issued by Kings Bridge Inc. to each of these
individuals. (ID -8, pages 59, 61 -63).
ID -8, page 75 is a check dated May 10, 2000, from Kings Bridge Inc. to
Woomer in the amount of $4,250.00. (See, Finding 208 I).
(1) This check was payment to Woomer for her work at the consolidated
PULSE training involving the West Greene School District and the
SCSD on May 9 -11, 2000. (ID -8, page 75; ID -9, page 4; ID -27, page
9).
(2) Respondent, Linda Jones, Brian Jackson, Art Waleski, and Rembold
were also at the PULSE training on May 9 -11, 2000.
(a) Similar checks were issued by Kings Bridge Inc. to each of these
individuals. (ID -8, pages 74, 76 -79).
(b) The check issued by Kings Bridge Inc. to Respondent at ID -8,
page 74 bears the notation "MS Training" which was the
reference commonly used for "Middle School Training."
r. ID -7, page 25 is a check dated February 7, 2001, from Kings Bridge Inc. to
Woomer in the amount of $3,000.00. (See, Finding 207 c).
(1) Although the memo on the check references consulting, this check was
payment to Woomer for her work at the consolidated PULSE training
involving the West Greene School District and the SCSD on or about
February 6 -8, 2001. (ID -7, page 25; ID -27, pages 27, 29, 35, 38).
(2) Respondent, Linda Jones, Art Waleski, Brian Jackson and Rembold
were also at the PULSE training on or about February 6 -8, 2001.
(a) Similar checks were issued by Kings Bridge Inc. to each of these
individuals. (ID -7, pages 26 -30).
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 62
s. Woomer had no involvement with the preparation of Kings Bridge Incorporated
checks.
t. Woomer had no access to the business dealings of Kings Bridge Incorporated.
178. Marlene Kanuck ( "Kanuck ") is employed by the Pennsylvania Department of
Education as a Safe and Drug Free School Advisor.
a. Funding under the Safe and Drug Free Schools grant program is only available
to school districts and non - public schools.
b. The Pennsylvania Department of Education does not become involved in telling
grant applicants what programs they should fund.
(1) The only requirement is that the programs be violence /drug /alcohol
prevention programs.
c. In order to apply for a Safe and Drug Free School grant, a local education
agency must first submit an executed master agreement.
(1) A master agreement applies to multiple grants.
(2) Master agreements would be signed by the school district
superintendents.
d. In addition to a master agreement, a "Rider" would be executed as to a specific
grant program.
(1) The Rider for the Safe and Drug Free Schools grant program is known
as "Rider N."
e. ID -13 is a certified copy the "Five Year Master Agreement" between the
Pennsylvania Department of Education and the SCSD for the period of July 1,
1998 to June 30, 2003.
f. ID -24 consists of true and correct copies of records of the Pennsylvania
Department of Education pertaining to the Safe and Drug Free Schools grant
application submitted by the SCSD to the Department of Education for the
1998 -1999 school year. (See, Finding 224).
(1)
(2)
(3)
The grant application was initially received at the Department of
Education on June 11, 1998.
The grant applicant is required to have an advisory council that helps to
advise the applicant on what programs would best meet its needs.
(a)
ID -24, page 25 consists of a participation form signed by
members of the required "Community Advisory Council."
ID -24, pages 8 -10 consist of a program summary sheet listing program
objectives, activities, expected outcomes, and evaluation methods
relative to the grant.
(a)
As initially submitted, the grant application included DARE and
DUI programs as activities linked to the program objectives of
decreasing drug and alcohol use by students. (ID -24, page 9).
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 63
(b) As initially submitted, the grant application included a survey
provided by the Rocky Mountain Behavioral Science Institute as
an activity linked to the program objectives of decreasing drug
and alcohol use by students. (ID -24, page 9).
(c) As initially submitted, the grant application did not reference use
of the PULSE Community Survey or PULSE training.
(4) ID -24, pages 33 -34 consist of the SCSD's "narratives" and "narrative
program objectives," submitted as part of the initial grant application,
which provide a required response to questions regarding the grant.
(a) The narratives and narrative program objectives as submitted for
the original grant application made no mention of a PULSE
program or PULSE survey.
(5) ID-24, pages 12 -14 consist of the budget cost breakdown for the original
grant application.
(6) ID -24, pages 4 -6 consists of the "Rider N" for this grant period, which
was signed by Respondent's predecessor and dated June 10, 1998.
(7) The total grant approved was $7,861.00. (ID -24, page 29).
(8) ID -24, pages 18 -20 pertain to a Rider Amendment executed by
Respondent on August 9, 1999, which Rider Amendment permitted the
SCSD to carryover funding beyond the original project ending date.
(See, Findings 224 d).
ID-24, page 28 is a letter dated September 4, 1998, which consists of a
required assurance by Respondent as the SCSD superintendent as to
the existence of memoranda of understanding between the SCSD and
local law enforcement agencies.
(
(10) ID -24, pages 16 -17 consist of the final progress report submitted by the
SCSD for the 1998 -1999 Safe and Drug Free Schools grant.
(a) The final progress report is submitted at the end of the grant
program and reports the progress made by the grant recipient
during the grant year.
(b) This report includes references to the PULSE Community
Survey and PULSE training.
(11) The inclusion of PULSE — related items under this grant was a change
that was made at the district level after the grant monies had been
approved.
(a) Under the grant program, grant recipients are permitted to make
changes to the activities listed in the grant application as long as
the changes meet the objectives.
(12) ID -24, page 3 is the Final Completion Report of the SCSD, which was
received at the Safe and Drug Free Schools Office on January 24,
2000. (See, Finding 224 f).
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 64
g.
(a) The Final Completion Report is a required submission and
indicates how much of the grant the recipient has received and
how much is still due the recipient.
(b) Chronologically, the Final Completion Report is always the final
record documenting the grant process.
ID-22 consists of certified copies of records of the Pennsylvania Department of
Education pertaining to the Safe and Drug Free Schools grant application
submitted by the SCSD to the Department of Education for the 1999 -2000
school year. (See, Finding 222).
(1) Respondent signed the Rider N for this grant application. (See, Finding
222 d).
(2) ID -22, page 11 consists of the summary budget for the grant.
(3) The Proposed Programs Summary at ID -22, pages 15 -17 makes no
mention of the PULSE program or a PULSE survey.
(4) ID -22, pages 27 -29 consist of the SCSD's "narratives" and "narrative
program objectives," which are required to be filed as part of the grant
application and which respond to questions regarding the grant.
(a) Both the PULSE survey and another survey are referenced in
the response.
(1) It is unusual for a grant applicant to use two surveys to do
the same thing.
(b) The PULSE program is referenced in the response.
(c) Programs mentioned in the program narrative should also be
listed in the program summary.
(d) It is unusual for a program to be mentioned in the program
narrative and not in the Proposed Programs Summary.
ID-22, pages 31 -34 consist of the final progress report submitted by the
SCSD for the 1999 -2000 Safe and Drug Free Schools grant.
(5)
(a) This report includes indicates that the PULSE program was
implemented by the SCSD under the grant.
h. ID -23 consists of true and correct copies of records of the Pennsylvania
Department of Education pertaining to the Safe and Drug Free Schools grant
application submitted by the SCSD to the Department of Education for the
2000 -2001 school year. (See, Finding 223).
(1) Respondent signed the Rider N for this grant application. (See,
Findings 202, 223 d).
(2) The Proposed Programs Summary at ID -23, pages 12 -14 make no
mention of the PULSE program.
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 65
ID -23, pages 19 -23 consist of the SCSD's program narrative which is
required to be filed as part of the grant application and which responds to
questions regarding the grant.
(a) The PULSE survey is referenced in the response.
(b) The PULSE program is referenced in the response.
(c) Programs mentioned in the program narrative should also be
listed in the program summary.
(d) It is unusual for a program or survey to be mentioned in the
program narrative and not in the Proposed Programs Summary.
(4) ID-23, pages 27 -30 consist of the final progress report submitted by the
SCSD for the 2000 -2001 Safe and Drug Free Schools grant. (See,
Finding 223 e).
(a) This report includes indicates that the PULSE program was used
by the SCSD under the grant. (See, Finding 223 e(1)).
(3)
ID -25 consists of true and correct copies of records of the Pennsylvania
Department of Education pertaining to the Safe and Drug Free Schools grant
application submitted by the SCSD to the Department of Education for the
2001 -2002 school year. (See, Finding 225).
(1) Alex Dubil, Acting Superintendent, signed the Rider N for this grant
application. (See, Findings 173 j(4), 225 c).
(2) The Proposed Programs Summary at ID -25, pages 11 -13 make no
mention of the PULSE program or a PULSE survey.
ID -25, pages 18 -21 consist of the SCSD's program narrative which is
required to be filed as part of the grant application and which responds to
questions regarding the grant.
(a) Neither the PULSE survey nor the PULSE program is
referenced in the response.
(b) Based upon the grant documents, the PULSE program appears
to have been dropped at the SCSD.
(3)
179. James Breslin ( "Breslin ") was employed by the SCSD from approximately 1994 to
November of 1999.
a. Breslin was special education supervisor at the SCSD until Respondent
became superintendent, at which time Breslin became director of personnel.
b. As superintendent of the SCSD, Respondent was the ultimate authority over
SCSD staff as to the day -to -day activities of the school district.
(1) Respondent was Breslin's immediate supervisor.
c. The PULSE program was brought to Breslin's attention by the Respondent.
(1) Respondent never suggested to Breslin that Breslin look for any peer
mediation program other than PULSE.
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 66
d. Respondent gave Breslin the task of writing grant applications, including grant
applications to fund the PULSE program.
(1) Respondent and Breslin discussed the PULSE program.
(2) Respondent provided Breslin with material and information regarding the
PULSE program.
e. Respondent, not Breslin, had the ultimate authority to make a decision to submit
a grant application.
f. The decision to include the PULSE program in the grant application was made
by Respondent and the members of a Committee formed by Respondent to
initiate the PULSE program.
(1) This Committee did not exist prior to Respondent's tenure with the
SCSD.
g.
(2) The Committee discussed the need for peer mediation programs.
(3) The Committee included Breslin and other SCSD employees.
(4) Respondent did not mandate to the Committee that the PULSE program
be used.
Breslin worked on the grant application at ID -14, which pertained to the 1999-
2000 Safe and Drug Free Schools Subgrant Number 98 -SC -01 -9581 awarded
to the SCSD through the PCCD. (See, Finding 214).
(1) Respondent signed the acceptance of the subgrant on behalf of the
SCSD. (See, Findings 202, 214j). (ID -14, page 37).
h. Breslin worked on the grant application at ID -18, which pertained to the second
round of funding awarded to the SCSD through the Pennsylvania Department
of Education's 1999 -2000 Safe Schools Initiative Grant. (See, Finding 218).
(1) Breslin's work on this grant was to compile information supplied to him
by Respondent and to research wording from other programs.
(2) It was not Breslin's decision to make Respondent the program director
under this grant.
It was not Breslin's decision to list Kings Bridge Incorporated as a
consultant /contractor on the budget narrative for this grant.
(4) Respondent provided Breslin with the name of Kings Bridge
Incorporated to list as a consultant /contractor on the budget narrative for
this grant.
Breslin drafted the needs assessment for this grant with information
provided to him by Respondent and other research that Breslin did.
(6) Respondent provided Breslin with the name of Kings Bridge
Incorporated to list as a consultant /contractor at ID -18, page 15 in the
submission for this grant.
(3)
(5)
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 67
i. Breslin was designated by the Respondent to serve as the contact person for
the Safe and Drug Free Schools grant application at ID -22, which was
submitted by the SCSD to the Department of Education for the 1999 -2000
school year. (See, Finding 222).
Respondent gave reports to the SCSD School Board at its November 9, 1998,
and August 16, 1999, meetings.
(1) The report given by Breslin at the November 9, 1998, meeting of the
SCSD School Board pertained to the PULSE training at Camp Harmony
and the process of applying for a grant to support the PULSE program.
(See, Finding 233 a).
(a) The report was given at the instruction of Respondent.
(2) The report given by Breslin at the August 16, 1999, meeting of the
SCSD School Board pertained to the PULSE grant. (ID -34, page 4).
k. In the course of processing the grants referenced above, Respondent told
Breslin that he (Respondent) was a trainer with Kings Bridge Incorporated.
(1) Respondent was a trainer for the PULSE program at the training session
at Camp Harmony that Breslin attended prior to the November 9, 1998
meeting of the SCSD School Board.
I. At Respondent's suggestion, Breslin become a member of the PULSE Core
Training Team.
(1) Breslin only participated as a trainer in one PULSE training before
leaving the SCSD.
(2) Breslin was not compensated by any source other than the SCSD for
participating in the PULSE program or PULSE training.
180. William Hoffner ( "Hoffner ") was employed by the SCSD for approximately thirty -one
(31) years until his retirement on June 30, 2003.
a. Hoffner served as the director of special education and student services at the
SCSD from approximately November 1999 to June 30, 2003.
(1) Hoffner's immediate supervisor was the superintendent of the SCSD.
b. Prior to Respondent's employment as superintendent of the SCSD, there was
no PULSE program at the SCSD.
c. Hoffner had no independent knowledge or information about the PULSE
program.
d. Hoffner first heard of the PULSE program at meetings of a committee initiated
during Respondent's tenure as superintendent.
(1) Respondent was part of the committee.
(2) It was Hoffner's belief that the committee was initiated by Respondent
and that Respondent was the first individual who mentioned PULSE at
the committee meetings.
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 68
j.
(3) Respondent told the committee that the PULSE program was a program
that might suit the needs and accomplish the goals of the
SCSD /committee.
(4) Hoffner testified that there was discussion by the committee that there
were probably other programs that would help to achieve the goals of the
SCSD /committee.
(5)
The Committee decided to adopt the PULSE program.
e. Hoffner was involved in the preparation of grant applications.
f. It was not Hoffner's ultimate decision as to whether to apply for grant funds.
g. Hoffner did not make the decision as to which program to seek funding for in
grant applications.
h. Hoffner did not have the authority to make decisions as to who the consultants
and contractors would be for grants.
Hoffner participated in preparing grant applications that supported the PULSE
program.
(1) At the time Hoffner was performing functions in relation to the
submission of such grant applications, Hoffner did not know whether or
not Respondent served as a director for Kings Bridge Incorporated or
was being compensated by Kings Bridge Incorporated for services.
(2) In preparing grant applications, Hoffner used prior grant applications that
had been prepared by his predecessor, Breslin, as well as information
and help provided by Respondent.
Hoffner was involved in the grant application process for the grant at ID -17,
pertaining to the 2000 -2001 Safe Schools Initiative Grant awarded to the SCSD
under the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Education's "Safe
School Initiative." (See, Finding 217).
(1) Hoffner did not prepare the Application Cover Sheet at ID -17, page 4.
(2) Hoffner did not list Kings Bridge Incorporated as a consultant /contractor
on the Budget Narrative at ID -17, page 7 for this grant.
(3) It was not Hoffner's decision to include Kings Bridge Incorporated in the
project narrative at ID -17, page 17.
(a) It was Hoffner's belief that he (Hoffner) prepared the project
narrative commencing at ID-17, page 9 using a previous
document.
k. Hoffner was involved in the grant application process for the grant at ID -23,
pertaining to the Safe and Drug Free Schools grant application submitted by the
SCSD to the Department of Education for the 2000 -2001 school year. (See,
Finding 223).
(1) Hoffner was not the originator of the information in the project narrative
commencing at ID -23, page 19, although he testified that he probably
prepared the project narrative using a prior document as a model.
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 69
Hoffner attended some PULSE retreats and training sessions held for students
of the SCSD.
(1) Respondent was present at these events in varying capacities as a
facilitator, observer and mentor.
m. In the first weeks of the fall term of the 2001 -2002 school year, shortly after
Respondent had left employment with the SCSD, a scaled -down version of the
PULSE program was used in-house at the SCSD.
181. Doctor Alan Lonoconus ( "Lonoconus ") is currently employed as the superintendent of
the SCSD, having served in that capacity since July 13, 2002.
a. During Respondent's tenure as the superintendent of the SCSD, Lonoconus
initially served as administrative assistant to the superintendent and
subsequently served as high school principal.
(1) In both positions, Lonoconus' immediate supervisor was the SCSD
superintendent.
b. During Respondent's tenure as the superintendent of the SCSD, Respondent
as superintendent was in charge of the day -to -day activities of the SCSD.
c. Lonoconus first heard the term "PULSE" or "PULSE program" from the
Respondent at a meeting of the SCSD "administrative cabinet."
(1) The administrative cabinet consisted of the SCSD superintendent and
other administrators.
d. Prior to Respondent's employment with the SCSD, Lonoconus had never heard
of the PULSE program.
e. Respondent brought the PULSE program to the attention of the administrative
cabinet and stated that it was a program that he (Respondent) was familiar with
because of his participation with other groups with it.
f. The administrative cabinet was not prevented from seeking programs other than
the PULSE program.
The decision to use the PULSE program at the SCSD was a result of
collaboration among the members of the administrative cabinet.
g.
h. A group referred to as the PULSE group was formed at Respondent's
instruction.
(1) The PULSE group consisted of SCSD staff members who were going to
be trained in the PULSE program.
Respondent directed Lonoconus to attend a PULSE function at Camp Harmony
near Somerset, Pennsylvania, as an observer.
Respondent, Rembold, and Brian Jackson from the West Greene School
District provided information regarding the PULSE program to Lonoconus and
other SCSD staff.
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 70
k. Lonoconus had a limited role with regard to grant applications for the PULSE
program, consisting of providing monthly data for the applications at the request
of Respondent or the district office.
As Administrative Assistant and subsequently as High School Principal,
Lonoconus did not have the authority to ultimately decide which programs the
SCSD would implement.
m. For the time period from 1998 to February 2001, Lonoconus did not recall ever
seeing the SCSD School Board take action or vote to approve the filing of an
application for grant funds.
(1) It had been the practice at the SCSD even before the Respondent was
hired as SCSD superintendent for administration to apply for grants
without any formal action by the SCSD School Board.
n. Prior to Respondent's service as SCSD superintendent, the SCSD did not
have a PULSE program or participate in one.
o. To the knowledge of Lonoconus, at the time the SCSD was applying for grant
funds and the decision was being made to implement the PI. LSE program,
Respondent did not offer any alternative programs other than the PULSE
program for consideration in the grant request.
Lonoconus was listed as a member of the "PULSE core training staff' on the
PULSE Organizational Chart submitted as an attachment to the SCSD's grant
application for the first round of funding under the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania Department of Education's 1999 -2000 Safe Schools Initiative.
(ID -16, page 48). (See, Finding 216).
(1) Lonoconus' service as a member of the PULSE core training staff was
in his capacity as a SCSD employee.
(2) Lonoconus was compensated for such service by the SCSD.
(3) Lonoconus did not have any contract with Kings Bridge Incorporated.
(4) Lonoconus never received any compensation from Kings Bridge
Incorporated for his service as a PULSE core training staff member or
for any other reason.
Respondent approved Lonoconus' travel expense voucher at ID-15, page 9 for
transporting students from a basketball playoff to a PULSE retreat.
(1) Lonoconus' travel expense voucher required the approval of the SCSD
superintendent.
r. Respondent was present at all PULSE functions involving the SCSD that
Lonoconus attended.
P.
q.
s. Lonoconus did not play any role in selecting Kings Bridge Incorporated to
provide services to the SCSD.
t. Lonoconus did not make any decisions to include Kings Bridge Incorporated as
an identified consultant in SCSD grant applications.
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 71
u. Lonoconus did not play any role in deciding whether Mainstream Counseling,
Inc. would provide services to the SCSD.
v. Lonoconus did not play any role in deciding whether Mainstream Counseling,
Inc. would be identified as a contract consultant on grant applications.
w. From 1998 through the time Respondent left employment with the SCSD in
2001, the SCSD required its employees to reimburse the SCSD for charges for
personal telephone calls.
x. Prior to Respondent's employment with the SCSD, the administration and staff
of the SCSD had discussed and were aware of a need at the SCSD for
programs addressing at -risk students, student leadership, peer mediation and
the like.
(1) The search for a SCSD superintendent that resulted in the hiring of
Respondent focused upon specific qualifications and credentials,
including the ability to spearhead these types of programs.
182. Linda J. Kreischer Kreischer" is a School Director for the SCSD, having served in
that capacity since December 1999.
a. From January 2000 through the spring of 2001 agendas for the SCSD School
Board meetings originated from the superintendent's office.
b. From January of 2000 through the spring of 2001 there was no SCSD School
Board committee devoted to grant applications or grant funding.
c. Through her entire service as a SCSD School Board member, Kreischer relied
fully on the information provided by the SCSD superintendent.
d. The SCSD superintendent is responsible for running the day -to -day activities of
the SCSD.
e. As a SCSD School Board member, Kreischer never participated in the
identification of grant funding sources.
f. As a SCSD School Board member, Kreischer never participated in any action
to approve the filing of grant applications.
(1) The SCSD superintendent had responsibility for identifying grant
sources.
g.
(2) The SCSD School Board looked to the SCSD administrators to apply for
grants.
As a SCSD School Board member, Kreischer never played a role in deciding
which programs would be included in grant applications.
h. From January 2000 until the spring of 2001, Kreischer never heard of Kings
Bridge Incorporated except in the spring of 2001 with relation to the 2 1st
Century grant.
As a SCSD School Board member, Kreischer never played a role in deciding
whether Kings Bridge Incorporated would be a contract consultant for the
SCSD.
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 72
j. Kreischer has never played a role in recommending, suggesting or participating
in the inclusion of Kings Bridge Incorporated as an identified contract consultant
with any grant application for the SCSD.
k. Kreischer has never heard of Mainstream Counseling.
Payments to service providers under SCSD grants would be approved among
other bills approved by the SCSD School Board on a monthly basis.
183. Francis S. Berger ( "Berger ") served as a school director for the SCSD from December
of 1999 to December of 2001.
a. The SCSD School Board is a nine - member board.
b. From December 1999 through December 2001 agendas for the SCSD School
Board meetings originated from the superintendent's office.
c. During Respondent's tenure as superintendent of the SCSD, Respondent was
in charge of the day -to -day activities of the SCSD.
d. During Berger's service as a SCSD School Director, the SCSD School Board
did not have any grant committee or sub - committee.
e. As a SCSD School Board member, Berger was fully dependent upon
Respondent as superintendent to provide him (Berger) with information.
f. As SCSD superintendent, Respondent made recommendations and
suggestions to the SCSD School Board.
During Berger's service as a SCSD School Board member, the SCSD School
Board did not play a role in filing grant applications.
(1) SCSD grants were obtained by administration.
(2) Berger never participated in the completion or compilation of information
for a SCSD grant application.
h. To Berger's knowledge, the SCSD School Board never took action to approve
the filing of a grant application.
Other than with respect to the 21 Century grant, Berger never played any role
in deciding to include PULSE in grant applications filed by the SCSD.
Berger never played a role in deciding whether to select Kings Bridge
Incorporated as a contract consultant for the SCSD.
k. Berger never played a role in deciding to utilize the services of Mainstream
Counseling as a contract vendor for the SCSD.
Berger never played a role in including Mainstream Counseling in any SCSD
grant applications.
m. From the commencement of Berger's service as an SCSD School Board
member until February 2001, Respondent never made any statement to the
SCSD School Board in either executive or public session of any relationship
that he (Respondent) may have had with Kings Bridge Incorporated.
g.
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 73
n. From the commencement of Berger's service as an SCSD School Board
member until February 2001, Respondent never made any statement at an
SCSD School Board meeting, in either executive or public session, indicating
whether he (Respondent) had received compensation of any type through
Kings Bridge Incorporated.
o. During Berger's service as an SCSD School Board member, there was no clear
identification on SCSD bill lists of expenditures of grant money.
184. Daniel Yeager ("Yeager") is a school director for the SCSD and has served in that
capacity since February 1998.
a. From February 1998 to the summer of 2001 when Respondent terminated
employment with the SCSD, Respondent as superintendent ran the day -to -day
operations of the SCSD.
b. From February 1998 to the summer of 2001 when Respondent terminated
employment with the SCSD, Respondent as SCSD superintendent provided
the SCSD School Board all of the information for board meetings except for
information provided by board committees.
(1) Agendas for the SCSD School Board meetings were provided by the
superintendent.
(2) Respondent as SCSD superintendent was expected to make
recommendations and suggestions to the SCSD School Board members
and Respondent did so on a regular basis.
c. To Yeager's knowledge, from February 1998 to the summer of 2001 when
Respondent terminated employment with the SCSD, there was no SCSD
School Board committee designated to deal with grant funding issues.
d. From February 1998 to the summer of 2001 when Respondent terminated
employment with the SCSD, the SCSD School Board was not actively involved
in the filing of applications for state or federal grant funding.
(1) The SCSD School Board did not participate in suggesting which
programs should be in the grant applications.
(2) The SCSD School Board depended upon the superintendent to identify
the programs that would be funded.
The SCSD School Board relied upon the superintendent to get grants
for the SCSD.
(3)
(a) Yeager would have expected that staff might have assisted
Respondent in locating and applying for grants under
Respondent's supervision.
e. Yeager first heard the term PULSE or PULSE program from Respondent.
(1) Respondent told the SCSD School Board about the PULSE program
and stated that he felt it would best fit the school.
(2) To Yeager's knowledge, Respondent did not indicate his position in
relation to the PULSE program.
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 74
f. To Yeager's knowledge, the SCSD did not have an ongoing PULSE program
prior to Respondent's employment with the SCSD.
The only instance Yeager is aware of in which the SCSD School Board took
action to include the PULSE program as a project to be funded with grant funds
was when the board gave final approval for the 21 Century grant.
h. To Yeager's recollection, he never took action as a SCSD School Board
member to include Kings Bridge Incorporated as an identified contract
consultant in any grant application.
g.
Yeager never made any decision to hire Kings Bridge Incorporated to provide
services to the SCSD.
As a SCSD School Board member, Yeager never made any decision to hire
Mainstream Counseling or to include Mainstream Counseling's name in a grant
application.
k. From the time Respondent was hired as superintendent of the SCSD in the
summer of 1998, Respondent did not disclose any affiliation that he had with
Kings Bridge Incorporated until 2001 shortly before his resignation.
Yeager was not aware of any disclosure by Respondent to the SCSD Board, in
either executive or public session, as to whether he was receiving
compensation from Kings Bridge Incorporated, until shortly before
Respondent's resignation from the SCSD.
m. Grant monies received by the SCSD went into the SCSD's general treasury.
(1) The SCSD School Board then approved expenditures of grant moneys
as part of paying the SCSD bills.
185. Julie Tritt Schell ( "Schell ') was employed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Department of Education for approximately five years preceding August 2002.
a. Schell's first position with the Department of Education was as an executive
policy specialist, which position Schell held for four years.
j.
b. During the final year of her employment with the Department of Education,
Schell served as the Director of the Office of Education and Technology.
c. Schell created the concept of the Superintendents' Technology Leadership
Program.
d. The Montgomery County Intermediate Unit was given a contract by the
Pennsylvania Department of Education to help develop the agenda and
administer the technology leadership program.
e. The first Superintendents' Technology Leadership conference was held in the
summer of 2000.
(1) Schell was present every day of the conference.
(2) Every superintendent was provided with a laptop computer the first day
of the conference, before the opening session of the conference began.
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 75
(3)
The superintendents were required to attend all sessions every day of
the conference.
(4) During the opening session of the conference, Schell verbally told the
attendees that the laptops were theirs to use at home and at their school
district and that the laptop was school district property if they chose to
leave their school district.
f. Exhibit R -4 is the first announcement that was issued to Pennsylvania
superintendents regarding the first Superintendents' Technology Leadership
Academy. (See, Finding 245).
(1) The announcement states in part:
A nominal fee of $200 will be charged ... and will include
a single room and meals at the Hershey Convention
Center, as well as a laptop of your choice that you
may keep after the academy (see registration
brochure).
(See, Finding 245 a).
(2) Schell received several inquiries from the first year of the
Superintendents' Technology Leadership Academy regarding ownership
of the laptop computers, which inquiries resulted in written information
being provided at subsequent conferences as to the ownership of the
laptop computers.
186. Robert Caruso is the Deputy Executive Director and Director of Investigations of the
State Ethics Commission.
a. The preliminary inquiry in this matter was initiated on August 21, 2001. (ID -1,
page 1).
b. The full investigation in this matter was initiated on October 19, 2001. (ID -1,
page 2).
c. The Investigative Division met all time requirements under the Ethics Act as to
the preliminary inquiry and investigation of Respondent and issuance of 90 -day
notice letters.
187. Doctor Dennis Harken ( "Harken ") is the Executive Director of the Montgomery County
Intermediate Unit.
a. For the past four years, the Montgomery County Intermediate Unit has had a
contract with the Pennsylvania Department of Education to operate the
Superintendents' Technology Leadership Academy.
b. The first Superintendents Technology Leadership conference was held in 2000
and was limited to superintendents of local school districts from across
Pennsylvania.
c. The laptop computers provided to attendees at the Superintendents Technology
Leadership conferences are paid for by the Montgomery County Intermediate
Unit from the contract money it receives from the Pennsylvania Department of
Education.
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 76
d. ID -28 consists of certified copies of records of the Montgomery County
Intermediate Unit pertaining to the first Superintendents' Technologg
Leadership conference, which was held July 24 -27, 2000. (See, Finding 228).
(1) Respondent attended this particular Superintendents' Technology
Leadership conference. (ID -28, page 8).
(2) ID -28, pages 9 -10 consist of the service purchase contract (with
attached budget summary) between the Pennsylvania Department of
Education and the Montgomery County Intermediate Unit by which the
latter agreed to host the Pennsylvania Superintendents' Technology
Leadership Academy.
ID -28, pages 11 -15 consist of a printout of expenditures for the
Superintendents' Technology Leadership Academy.
e. In April 2002 Harken telephoned Respondent and apprised Respondent of a
conversation that Harken had with Springer, Business Manager of the SCSD,
and of a concern that the laptop computer that Respondent had received at the
Superintendents' Technology Leadership Academy training was in
Respondent's possession rather than at the SCSD.
(1) Respondent acknowledged to Harken that he (Respondent) was using
the computer.
(2) Respondent conveyed to Harken that it was Respondent's belief that the
computer could remain in his possession as long as he was a
superintendent in Pennsylvania.
(3)
188. Holly Jobe ( "Jobe ") is employed by the Montgomery County Intermediate Unit as an
Instructional Material Services Director.
a. The first program under the Superintendents' Technology Leadership Academy
was held in 2000.
(1) Jobe was the director of the program.
(2) Respondent attended that particular program.
(3) The superintendents who attended the program were required to attend
all of the sessions.
(4) Each superintendent who attended the program was provided with either
an IBM or a Macintosh laptop computer.
During the conference, the superintendents were told that the laptop
computers belonged to their school districts.
(5)
b. ID-28, pages 11 -15 consist of a printout of all of the expenditures for the 2000
Superintendents' Technology Leadership Academy.
(1) The IBM computers that were provided to the superintendents attending
the first conference were purchased from "PC Connections Inc." at a
total cost of $218,309.00.
(a) The cost for each IBM computer including carrying case and
mouse would have been approximately $2,538.47.
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 77
c. While Respondent was in the process of being hired as superintendent of
Upper Dublin School District, Respondent asked Jobe whether he could take
the laptop computer he had received at the Superintendents' Technology
Leadership Academy to Upper Dublin School District.
(1) Jobe told Respondent that he should keep the laptop computer at the
SCSD.
(2) Jobe told Respondent that if the SCSD School Board would permit
Respondent to take the laptop computer with him to Upper Dublin
School District, he could take it.
189. Christine B. Hakes ( "Hakes ") is employed as the Business Manager and School Board
Secretary of the Camp Hill School District.
a. ID -30 consists of certified copies of records of the Camp Hill School District
pertaining to Respondent. (See, Finding 230).
(1) The records of the Camp Hill School District include only one Statement
of Financial Interests filed by Respondent, which is at ID-30, page 17.
(a) This form was supplemented by the letter from Respondent at ID-
30, page 16, which letter was received at the Camp Hill School
District on July 13, 2001. (See, Finding 230 b).
b. ID -30, pages 13 -15 consist of W -2 forms issued to Respondent by the Camp
Hill School District for 1996, 1997 and 1998, which forms accurately reflect
compensation paid by the Camp Hill School District to Respondent in those
years.
c. At the Camp Hill School District, administrators earn leave including 20 vacation
days, 12 sick days and several personal days each year.
(1) "Comp days" are also available to administrators.
d. Leave usage is documented by completing a form.
e. ID -30, pages 2 -3 consist of official records of leave accrual and usage for
Respondent as of June 30, 1997, and as of June 30, 1998. (See, Finding 230
d).
f. ID -30, page 4 consists of a notice to Respondent from the Office of the
Superintendent reflecting Respondent's leave as of the beginning of the 1997-
98 school year. See, Finding 230 e).
ID -30, pages 5 -12 consist of absentee record forms of Respondent. (See,
Findings 190 g(2), 230 f).
(1) The forms that bear a signature at the bottom were signed by the
superintendent of the Camp Hill School District.
h. During the time period that Respondent was employed at the Camp Hill School
District, employees were permitted to engage in supplemental employment.
g.
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 78
(1) If a Camp Hill School District employee engaged in supplemental
employment during school hours, the employee would be required to
submit a leave slip.
The Camp Hill School District has an unwritten policy that administrators who
make personal phone calls using school district telephones reimburse the
school district for the charges.
j.
ID -30, pages 24 -30 consist of detailed telephone records for Respondent's
telephone line at the Camp Hill School District, number (717) 901 -2413.
(1) The records are for calls placed from August 29, 1997, through
December 23, 1997; January 13, 1998, through February 10, 1998; and
March 2, 1998, through May 8, 1998. (See, Finding 230 g(1)).
k. Hakes heard of Kings Bridge Incorporated directly from Respondent while
Respondent was employed by the Camp Hill School District.
(1) Although Hakes was not aware of the particular structure of the
company, it was Hakes' understanding that Respondent was a partner
with the company.
Hakes had conversations with Respondent regarding Kings Bridge Incorporated
after Respondent left the Camp Hill School District.
(1) It was Hakes' understanding that Respondent was at that time still
involved with Kings Bridge Incorporated.
m. To Hakes' knowledge, the Camp Hill School District did not have any official
business dealings with the West Greene School District, the Cabell County
West Virginia School District, or the Huntingdon School District in
Pennsylvania.
190. Cornelius V. Cain ( "Cain ") served as the superintendent of the Camp Hill School
District from 1993 until June 30, 2003.
a. Respondent was employed by the Camp Hill School District for two years as
Director of Educational Services.
b. Administrators of the Camp Hill School District were permitted to call any other
school district anywhere for professional information or collaboration, regardless
of whether the Camp Hill School District had formal business transactions with
such other districts.
c. Administrators of the Camp Hill School District were permitted to use school
district telephones infrequently for personal calls subject to the requirement that
they reimburse the school district for the charges.
d. Administrators of the Camp Hill School District were not permitted to use school
district facilities, equipment and the like for any purposes that had to do with
their earning money in some other capacity.
e. Administrators of the Camp Hill School District were not permitted to use the
school district telephones for supplemental employment or business purposes.
f. Cain was not aware of any problem with Respondent's use of Camp Hill School
District facilities including the telephones, equipment or stationery.
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 79
g.
During Respondent's employment at the Camp Hill School District,
administrators earned leave including vacation days, sick days and personal
days.
(1) In order to take leave, administrators were required to complete a form
specifying the dates and type of leave, which form Cain would sign to
indicate his approval.
(2) ID -30, pages 5 -12 are the absentee record forms that Camp Hill
administrators were required to complete in order to take leave. (See,
Findings 189 g, 230 f).
h. It was an unwritten policy of the Camp Hill School District that an administrator
engaging in activities outside the school district for which the administrator
would be paid was required to choose between the following two options: (1) for
education - related activities, taking a "professional day" without being assessed
leave but subject to the requirement of providing all of the compensation earned
to the Camp Hill School District; or (2) taking a personal day or vacation day
and keeping the compensation.
(1) Professional leave involved activities that might or might not directly
involve the school district but that were expected to ultimately benefit the
school district by educating the administrator and improving the
administrator's job performance.
Cain testified that he and Respondent talked about the company that
Respondent had formed with some other people.
(1) Respondent mentioned PULSE as the program that this company put
together.
(2) Respondent apprised Cain of a business engagement that he had that
was to occur on school time, and Cain told Respondent of Respondent's
options of taking professional day(s) and giving the money that he
earned to the Camp Hill School District or taking vacation day(s) or
personal day(s) and keeping that money.
(a) Respondent stated that he wanted to take vacation day(s).
j. To Cain's knowledge, Respondent never turned over any compensation earned
outside of the Camp Hill School District to the school district.
k. To Cain's knowledge, the Camp Hill School District did not have any official
business dealings with the West Greene School District in Waynesburg, PA.
To Cain's knowledge, the Camp Hill School District did not have any official
business dealings with the Cabell County School District in West Virginia
during Respondent's term of employment.
m. To Cain's knowledge, the Camp Hill School District did not have any official
business dealings with the Huntingdon School District in Huntingdon,
Pennsylvania during Respondent's term of employment with the Camp Hill
School District.
n. In addition to leave, Camp Hill School District administrators were allowed a
certain number of paid holidays.
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 80
o.
P.
q.
(1) Because the number of school holidays - -when students and teachers
were not in school - -was greater than the number of days that
administrators were permitted to take as paid holidays, administrators
had to choose which of those days to take as paid holidays.
(2) In choosing which days to take as paid holidays, the administrators were
required to choose from among the school holidays, and they could not
claim a school day as a paid holiday.
Respondent's absentee record forms at ID -30, pages 5 -12 include forms that
do not bear the required signature of the superintendent.
Cain testified that there was no problem with Respondent's use of personal,
vacation or other leave.
Respondent's workday at the Camp Hill School District was generally a
conventional workday from 8:00 a.m. until 4:30 or 5:00 p.m., with variation as
needed.
r. Cain testified that Respondent performed his duties and got his work done at
the Camp Hill School District.
191. Daniel M. Bender ( "Bender ") is a Special Investigator III for the State Ethics
Commission.
a. Bender was the Investigative Division's assigned primary case agent in this
matter.
b. ID-12 consists of certified copies of records of the Cabell County West Virginia
Board of Education related to trainings that Respondent performed for that
school district.
c. ID -36 consists of certified copies of articles of incorporation for Tri- Chamber
Foundation, Inc., which records are on file with the Pennsylvania Department of
State.
d. ID-8 consists of bank records from Dominion National Bank, subsequently First
Union National Bank of Virginia, for the business checking account of Kings
Bridge, Inc. under account number 2070418047188. (See, Finding 208).
(1) These bank records pertain to the time period from January 1997
through July 2000. (ID -8, pages 2 -53). (See, Finding 208 c).
(2) This account was closed.
e. ID -7 consists of bank records from American Community Federal Credit Union
of Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, for the share and draft accounts of Kings
Bridge, Inc. under account number 2571. (See, Finding 207).
(1) This account was opened as a continuation of the previous Kings Bridge
Inc. account at Dominion National Bank, subsequently First Union
National Bank of Virginia.
f. ID -37 through ID -49 and ID -51 consist of demonstrative charts prepared by
Bender using information from other exhibits in evidence.
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 81
g.
ID -37, ID -38 and ID -39 are charts that collectively compile information in
evidence demonstrating PULSE - related billings by Kings Bridge Inc. and
Mainstream Counseling, Inc. to the SCSD, payments by the SCSD of those
billings using grant funds, deposits of such payments by Kings Bridge Inc. and
payments from Kings Bridge, Inc. to the Respondent.
(1) The SCSD made four payments directly to Kings Bridge Inc., which
payments totaled $25,400.00.
(2) There was one SCSD payment to Mainstream Counseling, Inc. in the
amount of $11,000.00, of which $10,450.00 was transmitted to Kings
Bridge Inc.
(a) Mainstream Counseling kept $550.00 of the $11,000.00
payment as an administrative fee. (See, Finding 177 n(7)).
SCSD payments to Kings Bridge Inc. and Mainstream Counseling, Inc.
were made using government grant moneys received under grants in
evidence as to which Respondent had official involvement as SCSD
superintendent.
(4) There were 8 payments made by Kings Bridge Inc. to Respondent,
which payments totaled $27,900.00.
All payments by Kings Bridge Inc. to Respondent were dated between
January 25, 2000, and July 6, 2001.
(a) None of these payments predated Respondent's employment
with the SCSD.
(3)
(5)
(6) The first payment from Kings Bridge Inc. to Respondent was dated 18
days after the date of the first payment from the SCSD to Kings Bridge
Inc.
(7)
The first six payments from Kings Bridge Inc. to Respondent were all
dated within the same timeframe that payments were being made from
the SCSD to Kings Bridge Inc. and Mainstream Counseling, Inc.
(8) The seventh payment from Kings Bridge Inc. to Respondent was dated
June 15, 2001, which was four months after the last PULSE activity for
which the SCSD was billed and fifteen days before the effective date of
Respondent's termination of employment at the SCSD. (See, Finding
9).
The eighth and final payment from Kings Bridge Inc. to Respondent was
dated July 6, 2001, which was nearly five months after the last PULSE
activity for which the SCSD was billed and five days after the effective
date of Respondent's termination of employment at the SCSD. (See,
Finding 9).
(
(10) Kings Bridge Inc. had one operating account at a given time.
(a) Funds received from the SCSD were commingled in this account
with funds received from other sources, which other sources
primarily were: (1) the West Greene School District (using
Mainstream Counseling as a pass through), where Rembold was
superintendent; and (2) the Huntingdon Area School District.
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 82
(11) There were 5 SCSD PULSE training events for which Kings Bridge
Incorporated provided services, which events occurred on: 1/11/00-
1/13/00 ; 3/14/00- 3/16/00; 5/9/00-5/11/00; 6/14/00- 6/15/00; and 2/6/01-
2/8/01. (ID 9 -8; I D 9 -2; I D 9 -4; I D 9 -6; I D 9 -10; and I D 27 -38).
(a) Three of these events were consolidated events involving
multiple school districts, with the invoices from Kings Bridge
Incorporated asserting a fee reduction for in -kind services:
1/11/00-1/13/00; 5/9/00 -5/11 /00; and 2/6/01- 2/8/01. (See,
Findings 177 p -r; ID 9 -8; ID 9 -4; and ID 9 -10).
(12) The Kings Bridge Incorporated invoices for the other two events, which
occurred on 3/14/00 - 3/16/00 and 6/14/00- 6/15/00, do not include any
reduction for in -kind or trainer services. (ID 9 -2; ID 9 -6).
(a) The Kings Bridge Incorporated invoice for the event on 3/14/00-
3/16/00 is invoice number 58022 dated March 31, 2000, in the
total amount of $5400.00. (ID 9 -2).
(b) Per the Kings Bridge Incorporated Bank account records, only
three checks were issued in the month of April 2000, each in the
amount of $900.00. (ID -8, pages 66 -68).
(1) One check, check number 1621, was dated April 4, 2000,
was payable to Thacker and had no memo. (IID -8, page
66).
(2) Two checks, numbers 1622 and 1623, were dated April
26, 2000, and were payable to Respondent and Brian
Jackson, and were both for "consulting."
(c) The Kings Bridge Incorporated invoice for the event on 6/14/00-
6/15/00 is invoice number 58032 dated June 19, 2000, in the
total amount of $6,000.00. (ID 9 -6).
(d) Per the Kings Bridge Incorporated Bank account records, only
four checks were issued in the month of June 2000, each in the
amount of $2,000.00.
(1) One check, check number 1638, was dated June 15,
2000, was payable to Bryan Rembold, and bore the
memo "web site." (ID -8, page 22).
(2) The other three checks totaling $6,000.00 were numbers
1639 dated June 15, 2000, 1640 dated June 15, 2000,
and 1641 dated June 17, 2000, payable to Rembold,
Respondent, and Thacker respectively, and were all for
consulting. (ID 8, pages 83 -85).
h. ID-40 is a chart that compiles information in evidence demonstrating use of the
billing arrangement between Mainstream Counseling, Inc. and Kings Bridge Inc.
for certain PULSE related activities.
(1) The billing arrangement was used for ten PULSE related activities from
December 7, 1999 to February 6, 2001.
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 83
(2) The first eight of the billings by Mainstream Counseling, Inc. were to the
West Greene School District.
(3) The ninth billing was to the Green County Vo -Tech School.
(4) The tenth billing was to the SCSD.
(a) By invoice number 8501 dated 2/6/01, Mainstream Counseling,
Inc. invoiced the SCSD in the amount of $11,000.00.
(b) With check number 22632 dated 2/7/01, the SCSD paid
Mainstream Counseling, Inc. the amount of $11,000.00 for
invoice number 8501.
(5)
(c) By invoice number 58025 dated 2/9/01, Kings Bridge Inc.
invoiced Mainstream Counseling, Inc. in the amount of
$10,450.00 for these same services at the SCSD.
(d) With check number 6981 dated 2/22/01, Mainstream
Counseling, Inc. paid Kings Bridge Inc. the amount of
$10,450.00 for its services to the SCSD.
For each of the ten billings, Mainstream Counseling, Inc. retained an
administrative fee of approximately 5% of the amount invoiced by Kings
Bridge Inc. for its services (the exact multiplier was .0526315).
ID-41 is a chart that compiles information in evidence demonstrating the billings
for consolidated PULSE training events attended by representatives of the
SCSD and West Greene School District.
(1) The consolidated PULSE training events involving the SCSD occurred
on 1/11/00-1/13/00; 5/9/00 - 5/11 /00; and 2/6/01 - 2/8/01.
j. ID -42 is a chart setting forth the Investigative Division's position as to evidence
of actions by Respondent relating to securing grants by the SCSD for the
initiation and continuation of the PULSE program at the SCSD.
k. ID -32, pages 8 -17 are documents submitted by Respondent's Counsel under
verification of Respondent in response to a subpoena request for "Supporting
documentation, including paid bills, invoices, vouchers, receipted bills, inventory
records and credit card bills, etc. related to employment by and /or contracts with
Kings Bridge and /or Mainstream Counseling.' (ID -32, pages 1, 5).
(1) These documents are described in Respondent's response as
"Deponent's handwritten time and service records from the years 1997,
1998, 1999 and 2000 — 10 attached sheets." (ID -32, page 5).
ID-43 is a chart that uses information in evidence to identify for the period 1997-
2000 weekdays listed on Respondent's time and service records at ID -32,
pages 8 -17 for which Respondent claimed to have provided services such as
research and writing to Kings Bridge Inc. but for which Respondent did not take
leave at the Camp Hill School District or the SCSD.
(1) Of the weekdays so identified, four were listed as dates on which
Respondent claimed to have worked a full day for Kings Bridge, Inc.
DATE
WEEKDAY
AMOUNT
CLAIMED
FOR
SERVICE
TO KB!
SCHOOL
DISTRICT
EMPLOYING
REPONDENT
2/9/98
Monday
$200.00
Camp Hill
School District
2/26/98
Thursday
$200.00
Camp Hill
School District
7/3/98
Friday
$200.00
Camp Hill
School District
5/17/99
Monday
$200.00
SCSD
YEAR
SCHOOL DISTRICT
EMPLOYING
REPONDENT
PRORATED
HOURLY RATE
1997
Camp Hill School
District
$34.98
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 84
(a) The chart erroneously lists another full day, Sunday, 3/1/98, as a
Wednesday.
(2) For all of the other dates, Respondent claimed to have worked a half -day
for Kings Bridge Inc.
ID -43 does not take into account the possibility of work being done
before or after the business day began or ended.
(4) The four weekdays for which Respondent claimed to have provided
research and writing services for a full day for Kings Bridge Inc. but did
not submit a leave form at the school district that employed him were as
follows:
(3)
(5)
ID -43 does not take into account Respondent's averments as to errors
in the entries or claimed holiday(s), but is based solely upon a
comparison of Respondent's time and service records to his leave
records.
(6) Based upon Respondent's salary as reflected in his W -2 Forms in
evidence, Bender calculated Respondent's hourly rates of pay at the
Camp Hill School District and the SCSD to have been as follows:
1998
(1/1 -7/13)
Camp Hill School
District
$42.44
1998
SCSD
$35.49
(7/14- 12/31)
1999
SCSD
$38.09
2000
SCSD
$39.55
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 85
(a) These calculations were based upon Bender's decision to use a
52 -week year with a 40 -hour workweek.
m. ID -44 is a chart that compiles information in evidence in order to identify
weekdays on which the Respondent provided outside services (other than
those listed in sub - Finding I immediately above) while receiving dual
compensation from his employer school district and an outside source.
(1) Respondent's hourly rates of pay were calculated as in ID -43.
(2) On the following three weekdays, Respondent provided outside services
(other than those listed in sub - Finding I immediately above) to Cabell
County Schools while receiving compensation from both Cabell County
Schools and his employer school district:
DATE
WEEKDAY
AMOUNT
WILCOX
RECEIVED
FROM
CABELL
COUNTY
SCHOOLS
FOR
OUTSIDE
SERVICES
AMOUNT
WILCOX
RECEIVED
FROM
SCHOOL
DISTRICT
EMPLOYER
11/6/97
Thursday
$250.00
$139.92
(Camp Hill
School
District)
11/7/97
Friday
$500.00
$279.84
(Camp Hill
School
District)
3/4/99
Thursday
$500.00
$304.72
(SCSD)
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 86
(3)
ID -44 erroneously includes another date, Friday, May 5, 1999, for
outside services provided by Respondent to Cabell County.
(a) May 5, 1999, was a Wednesday.
(b) There is no evidence of any outside services provided by
Respondent to Cabell County on May 5, 1999.
(c) On Friday, March 5, 1999, Respondent took a full day of
vacation leave at the SCSD. (ID -31, page 1).
(4) Respondent received employment compensation from the SCSD while
attending PULSE functions involving the SCSD.
n. ID -45 is a chart setting forth the Investigative Division's position regarding
alleged deficiencies /delinquencies as to Respondent's Statements of Financial
Interests for calendar years 1997 -2001.
(1) Respondent did not file a Statement of Financial Interests for calendar
year 1997.
o. ID -46 is a calculation by the Investigative Division as to what it contends was a
financial gain to Respondent as the result of retaining possession, after leaving
the SCSD, of the SCSD computer from the 2000 Superintendents' Technology
Leadership Academy.
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 87
(1) The calculation uses a purchase cost for the computer of $2,464.00 and
is based upon the premise that the cost of the computer may be
amortized over the 21 months the computer was in Respondent's
possession during and after service at the SCSD.
(2) The Investigative Division has asserted that Respondent received a
financial gain in the total amount of $1,173.30 as a result of having the
laptop computer for 10 months after leaving the SCSD.
P. ID -47 is a calculation by the Investigative Division as to what it contends was
the total financial gain received by Respondent relative to this matter.
q. At the SCSD, Respondent did not have a direct telephone line assigned to him.
(See, Finding 153).
r. ID -48 is a listing and calculation by the Investigative Division as to what it
contends were personal telephone calls made by Respondent from the SCSD
telephones for which no reimbursement was made.
(1) ID -48 is based upon: (a) Bender's review of telephone records in
evidence at ID -33 in which Respondent highlighted certain telephone
calls as being his and being personal in nature; (b) the location of those
same telephone numbers at other places in the telephone records where
Respondent did not highlight or make reimbursement for the calls; and
(c) the assumption that if a call to a particular number was made by
Respondent and was personal on at least one occasion, it was made by
Respondent and was personal on every occasion.
s. ID -49 is a listing and calculation by the Investigative Division as to what it
contends were calls made by Respondent from the SCSD to Kings Bridge Inc.
or Kings Bridge Inc. associates for which no reimbursement was made.
(1) ID -49 is based upon: (a) Bender's review of telephone records in
evidence at ID -33 to numbers Bender stated were identified as being
associated with people involved with either Mainstream Counseling or
Kings Bridge; and (b) the assumption that all calls to those numbers
were made by Respondent.
t. ID -51 is a compilation of information from bank account statements in evidence
for the Kings Bridge Incorporated business checking account at First Union
National Bank of Virginia (account no. 2070418047188) for the time period
from January 1996 through July 21, 2000. (See, Finding 208).
(1) ID -51 was prepared to demonstrate that: (1) Kings Bridge Inc. was
essentially a dormant company from 1996 though December 31, 1999;
(2) as soon as January 2000 grant monies became available for training
for PULSE programs, monies went from the SCSD, Huntingdon Area
School District and Mainstream Counseling into the Kings Bridge
account(s) with disbursements being made to Respondent and others
shortly thereafter; and (3) prior to such grant funds, Kings Bridge Inc.
had no income.
u. Bender reviewed the minutes of the SCSD School Board.
(1) The minutes of the SCSD School Board that identified either PULSE or
the PULSE program are in the record.
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 88
(2) Bender did not see any minutes of public meetings where Respondent
disclosed any association with Kings Bridge Incorporated or that he was
receiving compensation from Kings Bridge Incorporated.
Bender did not see any minutes where the SCSD School Board
approved the filing of a grant application relating to the PULSE program
with the exception of the 21 Century grant.
(3)
192. Dr. Robert G. Witten ( "Witten ") is employed as the Executive Director of the Central
Susquehanna Intermediate Unit.
a. The Central Susquehanna Intermediate Unit includes the SCSD.
b. The Central Susquehanna Intermediate Unit conducted the search that resulted
in the hiring of the Respondent as SCSD superintendent.
c. To Witten's knowledge, the Central Susquehanna Intermediate Unit has
expunged its files as to the hiring of Respondent as superintendent of the
SCSD.
d. R -1 is a document that is in the format used by the Central Susquehanna
Intermediate Unit when it develops search criteria for a school district
superintendent based upon the input of local focus groups.
e. Witten does not know whether R -2 is an accurate copy of the
application /resume of Respondent that was provided to the SCSD School
Board members.
f. Witten is not familiar with the PULSE program.
193. Susan J. Helwig ( "Helwig served as recording secretary for the SCSD School Board
and as secretary to the SCSD superintendent prior to and during Respondent's tenure
as SCSD superintendent.
a. The SCSD superintendent operated as the SCSD's chief executive officer.
b. The SCSD School Board members are very dependent upon the SCSD
superintendent for the day -to -day activities of running the school district.
c. When Respondent came to the SCSD, the district was interested in obtaining
grant funding.
d. As SCSD superintendent, Respondent had the authority to make decisions
regarding whether to implement certain programs.
e. As Respondent's secretary, Helwig played a role in compiling and inputting into
grant applications information provided to her by applicable department(s) of the
SCSD.
f. It was Helwig's recollection that at SCSD School Board meetings, Respondent
would regularly update the board members as to the processing of grant
applications.
Helwig did not attend the administrative meetings between Respondent and the
administrative staff.
g.
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 89
(1) Helwig was not privy as to whether there were discussions regarding
grants at these meetings.
h. Helwig described Respondent as a collaborative boss as opposed to a dictator.
Helwig is currently Respondent's secretary at the Upper Dublin School District.
194. Guy Schlesinger ( "Schlesinger ") is an attorney and former member of the SCSD
School Board.
a. Schlesinger was a member of the SCSD School Board from 1996 -1999 and
served as President of the board during the last two years of his tenure.
b. During the interviewing of Respondent for the position of SCSD superintendent,
there were discussions concerning student support programs.
c. The SCSD School Board listened to the recommendations of the administrators
regarding programs.
d. During his service on the SCSD School Board, Schlesinger only heard of
PULSE two times: the first time when he saw it in the documentation by which
Respondent applied for the position of SCSD superintendent, and the second
time during a presentation by Breslin to the SCSD School Board, when Breslin
briefly explained the program and mentioned that Respondent had been one of
the founders of that program.
e. With regard to grant applications, Schlesinger stated that the SCSD School
Board played a limited role of voting to accept grants and, if and when
necessary, approve applications.
f. As SCSD superintendent, Respondent was in charge of the day -to -day
activities at the SCSD.
(1) As President of the SCSD School Board, Schlesinger did not observe
Respondent on a daily basis.
195. Craig Roadarmel ( "Roadarmel ") is a member and the current President of the SCSD
School Board.
a. Roadarmel has served on the SCSD School Board since January 1998.
b. Roadarmel participated in the search for an SCSD superintendent that led to
the hiring of the Respondent.
(1) Roadarmel does not recall any mention of a student support program in
the interview process.
c. The PULSE program was mentioned to the SCSD School Board in a
presentation by Breslin.
(1) Roadarmel was not aware of whether Breslin was directed to make the
presentation.
d. The SCSD School Board looked to the Respondent as superintendent to
accomplish the identification of grant source funding and the application for
grants.
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 90
e. The SCSD School Board did not participate in the process of applying for
grants.
(1) The SCSD School Board did not play any role in completing grant
applications or selecting the programs that would be in included in the
grant applications.
(2) The SCSD School Board did not play any role in deciding which contract
vendors would be named in the grant applications that were submitted by
the SCSD.
f. It was not necessary for the SCSD School Board to approve the applications for
grants.
g. The SCSD School Board looked to Respondent for expertise,
recommendations and suggestions as to what kind of programs were effective.
h. Respondent told the SCSD School Board that the SCSD would get a reduced
rate for PULSE training because Respondent was a trainer.
(1) It was Roadarmel's understanding that Respondent performed PULSE
training services in his role as SCSD superintendent and as part of his
superintendent's salary.
(2) Respondent never disclosed to Roadarmel whether he (Respondent)
was getting any compensation from the company hired by the SCSD to
conduct PULSE training for the district.
Respondent's status as a trainer was the only affiliation between Respondent
and the PULSE program of which Roadarmel was aware.
As President of the SCSD School Board, Roadarmel typically reviewed in
advance the board meeting agendas, which agendas were prepared by the
Respondent.
k. The SCSD superintendent, not the School Board, was involved in the day -to-
day running of the school district.
I. Prior to Respondent's employment by the SCSD, the SCSD did not have a
PULSE program.
(1) Roadarmel testified that he did not recall whether, at the time the PULSE
program was established, goals were established for that program.
(7/18/03 Tr. at 22, lines 14 -19).
196. Louis Clippinger ( "Clippinger ") is employed as the Director of Curriculum Instruction for
the SCSD and has served in that capacity since 1999.
a. Prior to serving as the Director of Curriculum Instruction, Clippinger served as
the elementary principal at the SCSD from 1985 to 1999.
b. Clippinger participated in the 1998 interviews of candidates for the position of
SCSD superintendent.
(1) One focus of the interviews was student support programs.
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 91
(2) During Respondent's interviews, Respondent's presentations included
student support programs.
c. During Respondent's first year as SCSD superintendent, Clippinger attended a
meeting of aides, teachers, parents and administrators at which Respondent
gave a presentation about expanding student services at the high school level.
(1) After Clippinger disagreed with Respondent regarding part of what was
discussed, Respondent made Clippinger aware of some of what
Respondent had done in districts in Fairfax, Virginia and in the Camp Hill
School District.
d. Clippinger described Respondent's administrative style as collaborative and
consensus building.
e. During Respondent's tenure at the SCSD, Clippinger was involved in needs
assessment and general discussion but was not directly involved in specifics as
to what programs would be used at the SCSD.
(1) Clippinger recalled one program other than PULSE being mentioned by
name.
(2) The SCSD has a high school "student assistance team" that has been
in existence since before Respondent was employed at the SCSD.
(a) This team looks at programs and the delivery of services at the
SCSD.
f. The SCSD superintendent made the final decisions as to what programs would
be implemented at the SCSD.
g. Clippinger was not involved in the decision to implement the PULSE program at
the SCSD.
h. Clippinger was not involved to any great degree in the implementation of the
PULSE program at the SCSD.
During the interview process for the position of SCSD superintendent,
Respondent made it known that he had some prior involvement with PULSE.
(1) During the interview process Respondent did not disclose whether he
was affiliated with or receiving any compensation from Kings Bridge
Incorporated.
Prior to the time that an SCSD School Board member raised questions as to
Kings Bridge Incorporated, Clippinger was unaware of any relationship between
Kings Bridge Incorporated and PULSE.
(1) During Respondent's first year at the SCSD, Clippinger was introduced
to Rembold and Thacker as individuals who could implement a program,
but Clippinger did not know at that time that Rembold and Thacker were
affiliated with Kings Bridge Incorporated.
k. To the extent Clippinger had any involvement in any grant application during
Respondent's tenure as SCSD superintendent, Clippinger never made a
decision to include in such grant application the entity known as Kings Bridge
Incorporated.
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 92
During Respondent's tenure as SCSD superintendent, Clippinger never made
any decision to hire Kings Bridge Incorporated as a school district contract
vendor.
197. Rae Atherton ( "Atherton ") is a member of the SCSD School Board.
a. Atherton has served as a SCSD School Board member for approximately 16
years.
b. Atherton was present during the interviews of Respondent for the position of
SCSD superintendent.
(1) The SCSD School Board was interested in hiring a superintendent who
would arrange for student service programs at the SCSD.
(2) During Respondent's interview process, Respondent presented material
pertaining to student service programs.
c. The SCSD was interested in obtaining grants.
d. The SCSD administrators, not the SCSD School Board, applied for grants.
(1) Atherton stated that the administrators apprised the School Board of
grants they wanted to pursue.
(2) Atherton did not remember whether any board action was required to
approve pursuing a grant.
e. Atherton stated that Respondent explained the PULSE program to the SCSD
School Board members before the program began.
(1) Atherton testified that Breslin may have been involved with the
explanation.
198. Rile Edgar Thacker ( "Thacker ") is a principal in Kings Bridge Incorporated.
a. R -6 consists of the bylaws of Kings Bridge Incorporated. (See, Finding 246).
b. Thacker testified that R -7 consists of minutes of meetings of Kings Bridge
Incorporated, which testimony and exhibit are not credible.
(1) No one but Thacker attended the purported meetings.
(2) Thacker is not credible for other reasons set forth below.
c. Thacker and Rembold were the original incorporators, directors and
stockholders of Kings Bridge Incorporated.
d. Thacker testified that as a result of conflicts with PULSAR, Inc. and the
"Staunton situation," by letter dated February 17, 1993, Rembold resigned as
an officer, stockholder and director of Kings Bridge Incorporated, which
testimony is not credible. (See, Finding 238).
(1) The purported resignation letter is in evidence as ID -52.
(2) On February 26, 1993 just nine days after the date of the purported
resignation — Rembold signed a signature card for a Kings Bridge
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 93
Incorporated bank account at the Dominion National Bank,
subsequently First Union National Bank of Virginia. (See, Finding 208
a).
(a) Rembold signed the signature card as an authorized signatory on
the account. (ID -8, page 1). (See, Finding 208 b).
In 2000 Rembold signed checks issued from the account in the name of
Kings Bridge Incorporated. (See, ID -8, pages 55, 57, 66, 85).
(a) Per the bylaws of Kings Bridge Incorporated, all checks issued in
the name of the corporation are required to be signed by
officer(s) or agent(s) of the corporation. (Article V, paragraph 3;
see, Finding 247 b).
(4) Thacker listed Rembold as an officer and director of Kings Bridge
Incorporated on corporate Annual Reports that he (Thacker) signed and
filed with the Commonwealth of Virginia State Corporation Commission
for the years 1993 through 2000. (ID -6, pages 16 -31). (See, Finding
206 e).
(a) Each of these Annual Reports bears the signature "R. Edgar
Thacker" under a statement affirming that the information
contained in the report is accurate. (ID -6, pages 16 -31). (See,
Finding 206 g).
(3)
e. Thacker testified that Respondent was never a director of Kings Bridge
Incorporated (7/18/03 Tr. at 81), which testimony is not credible.
(1) Thacker cited the bylaws of Kings Bridge Incorporated as providing for
only two directors (7/18/03 Tr. at 83).
(a) The same bylaws provide that three directors are needed for a
quorum. (See, Finding 247 a).
(b) The same bylaws provide a process for expanding the board of
directors. (See, Finding 247 a).
(c) Even if the number of directors had been limited to only two,
there would have been a vacancy as of February 17, 1993, if, as
Thacker testified, Rembold had resigned as an officer,
stockholder and director on that date. (See, Findings 198 d,
238).
(d) Thacker testified that he did not follow the bylaws and that he
added and reported directors without holding any election of
directors.
(2) Thacker listed Respondent as a director of Kings Bridge Incorporated on
corporate Annual Reports that he (Thacker) signed and filed with the
Commonwealth of Virginia State Corporation Commission for the years
1993 through 2000. (ID -6, pages 16 -31). (See, Finding 206 f).
(a) Each of these Annual Reports bears the signature "R. Edgar
Thacker" under a statement affirming that the information
contained in the report is accurate. (ID -6, pages 16 -31). (See,
Finding 206 g).
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 94
(b) Thacker testified that these statements were true because in his
mind, Respondent was a director of Kings Bridge Incorporated.
(7/18/03 Tr. at 106 -107).
Thacker's explanation that he listed Respondent as a director of Kings
Bridge Incorporated on the Annual Reports to make sure that
Respondent stayed involved with Kings Bridge Incorporated makes no
sense and is not credible given Thacker's testimony that Respondent
specifically told Thacker that he (Respondent) did not want to be a
director. (7 /18/03 Tr. at 89, 107, 193, 198).
(4) Per the bylaws, resignation as a director required written notice to the
board of Kings Bridge Incorporated (By -laws of Kings Bridge Inc., Article
III, paragraph 10), yet Thacker acknowledged that the only writing from
Respondent by which Respondent resigned as a director was the letter
in evidence as R -8, dated April 16, 2001. (See, Findings 247 a, 248).
(7/18/03 Tr. at 92 -93, 115).
g.
(3)
f. Thacker stated that Respondent conducted research and writing for Kings
Bridge Incorporated beginning in the mid 1980's.
(1) Thacker stated that ID -32, pages 8 -17 are expense documents that
Respondent presented to Thacker for work that Respondent had been
performing.
(2) Thacker stated that Respondent was paid based upon a flat per diem
rate for whole or half days, with no separate reimbursement for out -of-
pocket expenses.
Thacker testified that the ability of Kings Bridge Incorporated to pay
Respondent for these claimed services /expenses depended upon the financial
status of Kings Bridge Incorporated. (7/18/03 Tr. at 122).
(1) Kings Bridge Incorporated generated money through contracts for the
presentation of programs such as PULSE.
(2) Thacker testified that the more business Kings Bridge Incorporated got
for performing services, the more income it would have to pay
Respondent's invoices.
Kings Bridge Incorporated was a dormant company and did no business
and had no income for the years 1996, 1997 and 1998.
(3)
h. Thacker stated that Kings Bride Incorporated purchased from the Respondent
the manuscript of Respondents doctoral dissertation.
(1) Thacker testified that Respondent has received some payment for that
manuscript.
Kings Bridge Incorporated began to do business in 1999, when it conducted
PULSE programs in the SCSD, West Greene School District, and Huntingdon
School District in Pennsylvania.
(1) The SCSD and West Greene School District primarily generated the
income of Kings Bridge Incorporated.
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 95
j. Thacker has given contradictory and conflicting information regarding why he
went to the SCSD and West Greene School District regarding the PULSE
program.
(1) Prior to the hearing in this matter, Thacker informed SEC Investigators
Bender and Fueschlin that to get the business going, "we" went to the
SCSD, West Greene School District and Huntingdon School District
and talked about programs, and that these locations were picked
because they "seemed like a relatively good place to go." (7/18/03 Tr. at
133 -134).
(2) At the hearing in this matter, Thacker initially testified on cross -
examination that he was contacted and asked by someone from the
SCSD to come to the SCSD and talk about the PULSE program.
(7/18/03 Tr. at 131).
Thacker subsequently testified on cross - examination that he was not
invited or asked to come to the SCSD and West Greene School District,
but rather, initially went on his own to training retreats that were being
conducted at these school districts "out of interest." (7/18/03 Tr. at 132).
(4) Still later on cross - examination, Thacker testified that Respondent
initially contacted him regarding having peer mediation resolution
programs without mentioning PULSE or Kings Bridge. (7/18/03 Tr. at
184, lines 2 -6).
A few moments later, Thacker testified that sometimes Respondent
would call Thacker when Kings Bridge was being asked to do work at
the SCSD. (7/18/03 Tr. at 184 -185).
(a) Thacker stated that he and Respondent had contact with one
another about programs and adult trainings and student trainings
that Respondent wanted to have for the SCSD. (7/18/03 Tr. at
184, lines 7 -18; 185).
(3)
(5)
k. Thacker paid the contract consultants for a given PULSE program on or about
the same day. (7/18/03 Tr. at 141, 152 -153).
Respondent has received compensation from Kings Bridge Incorporated for his
services as a trainer or facilitator for programs of Kings Bridge Incorporated.
(1) Thacker testified that Respondent was not paid by Kings Bridge
Incorporated for services rendered to the SCSD.
(2) Thacker testified that the charges to the SCSD were reduced to reflect
Respondent's free services as an in -kind contribution.
m. Thacker testified that although the monies from the SCSD, West Greene
School District and Huntingdon School District were commingled in the Kings
Bridge Incorporated account, he (Thacker) tracked the money and Respondent
was not paid with monies from the SCSD.
n. Thacker acknowledged that as the result of the consolidated trainings, Kings
Bridge Incorporated made payments to employees of the participating school
districts.
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 96
o. Thacker gave contradictory and conflicting information regarding the purpose of
payments to Respondent by Kings Bridge Inc. check number 1614 dated
January 25, 2000, in the amount of $3,500.00 and check number 1629 dated
May 10, 2000, in the amount of $4,000.00. (ID -8, pages 59 and 74).
(1) Thacker testified that Respondent's services at the January and May
2000 trainings were an in -kind contribution and that he received no
compensation for SCSD training. (7/18/03 Tr. at 142 -143).
(2) Thacker testified that the payments to Respondent in the amounts of
$3,500 and $4,000 at or about the times of the January and May 2000
trainings were for billings over the years that Respondent had presented
to Thacker for research, data collection, and writing, as well as the price
of Respondent's dissertation. (7/18/03 Tr. at 196 -197).
Thacker testified that the Kings Bridge Incorporated check number 1629
dated May 10, 2000, to Respondent was not for Middle School training
even though the check memo says that it was for that and even though
multiple other checks issued on the same date to other individuals who
typically provided such training were for Middle School PULSE training
at the SCSD. (ID 8, page 74). (7/18/03 Tr. at 155, 197).
(4) Thacker subsequently testified that he was not sure what the January
25, 2000, check to Respondent was for. (7/18/03 Tr. at 199 -200).
(a) Moments later, after being reminded that he had just testified that
this check and the May 10, 2000, check were payments for
Respondent's invoices and doctoral thesis, Thacker testified that
he believed the January 25, 2000, check was for such items.
(7/18/03 Tr. at 200).
(b) When asked why he paid these fees to Respondent on the same
day he paid other facilitators for participating in the consolidated
training of January 11 -13, 2000, Thacker replied, "Because
that's when I was writing checks." (7/18/03 Tr. at 201).
Thacker subsequently testified that the May 10, 2000, check to
Respondent was for program evaluation and development expenses for
the PULSE Program. (7/18/03 Tr. at 206 -207).
(6) Thacker was unable to match either of these payments to Respondent
to specific charges on Respondent's invoices. (7/18/03 Tr. at 208 -209).
Finally, Thacker testified that these two payments to Respondent were
a gainst the total of all of the Respondents invoices. (7/18/03 Tr. at
211).
Thacker testified that he received from the Respondent the letter dated June 2,
2001, that is in evidence as ID -55. (See, Finding 239). (7/18/03 Tr. at 180).
(1) The letter states that Respondent was requesting two payments in the
amounts of $6,000.00 and $5,500.00 for research, curriculum writing
and presentations related to the PULSE Plus 3 Program. (7/18/03 Tr. at
180 -181).
P.
(3)
(5)
(7)
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 97
q.
(2) Thacker testified that he would draw the conclusion from ID -55 that
Respondent had an expectation of being paid for the services he was
rendering. (7/18/03 Tr. at 181).
Pursuant to the December 1999 contract between Kings Bridge Incorporated
and Mainstream Counseling, Incorporated, a billing arrangement was
implemented whereby Mainstream Counseling billed the school district(s), the
school district(s) paid Mainstream Counseling, Kings Bridge Incorporated billed
Mainstream Counseling, and Mainstream Counseling paid Kings Bridge
Incorporated while keeping an administrative fee for itself.
(1) Thacker testified that he did not know why Mainstream Counseling was
not performing billing for the SCSD PULSE activities in 2000.
r. After Respondent left the SCSD, Kings Bridge Incorporated no longer issued
checks to Respondent.
s. Kings Bridge Incorporated does not have a contract with the school district that
currently employs Respondent.
199. Elizabeth Graboski ( "Graboski ") served as a member of the SCSD School Board from
January 1996 through December 1999.
a. Graboski testified that during Respondent's interview, Respondent gave a
presentation in which he mentioned that he and others in Virginia developed a
program for children who were in trouble.
(1) Graboski testified that she does not recall any reference to the program
by name during the interview process.
b. Respondent asked the SCSD School Board members if they would have any
objections to his having any interests outside of the school district.
c. During Respondent's tenure as superintendent, the SCSD School Board
received information from the Respondent regarding which grants were being
solicited and issued.
d. Graboski played no role in the grant application process or the selection of
contract vendors to provide services in relation to grant funding.
e. Graboski was not certain when she first heard of Kings Bridge Incorporated.
(1) On direct examination, Graboski testified that Breslin gave a
presentation to the SCSD School Board in which he mentioned that the
program that would be instituted into the curriculum would be handled by
Kings Bridge Incorporated. (8/21/03 Tr. at 9).
(2) On cross - examination, Graboski stated that she did not know exact)
where she heard it but assumed it was from Breslin. (8/21/03 Tr. at 15).
f. Graboski testified that the SCSD School Board made a decision to implement
the PULSE program, which testimony is not credible. (8/21/03 Tr. at 20).
(1) There is no such decision in the official minutes.
(a) Graboski could not explain why such a Board decision would not
be in the minutes. (8/21/03 Tr. at 20 -21).
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 98
(2) This testimony is contradicted by the testimony of other board members.
g. The SCSD did not have a PULSE Program before Respondent became SCSD
superintendent.
h. The SCSD implemented a PULSE Program because Respondent brought it to
the SCSD.
Graboski was no longer on the SCSD School Board when the PULSE trainings
occurred at the SCSD.
(1) Graboski played no role with regard to anything the SCSD School Board
did regarding the provision of services by Kings Bridge Incorporated.
Graboski did not know whether Respondent was involved in the training
program that was implemented for the SCSD.
k. The SCSD superintendent was responsible for running the school district.
I. Graboski did not observe Respondent firsthand on a day -to -day basis.
200. Michael Steven Wilcox ( "Respondent ") is currently employed as superintendent of the
Upper Dublin School District.
a. Respondent was employed as Director of Educational Services at the Camp Hill
School District from August 5, 1996, until August 7, 1998. (Finding 9 b).
b. Respondent was employed as superintendent of the SCSD from July 14, 1998,
until June 30, 2001. (Finding 9).
c. Respondent goes by the name "Steve."
d. Respondent testified that he was an independent contractor with PULSAR and
with Kings Bridge Incorporated.
e. Respondent testified that he never served as an organizer or incorporator of
PULSAR, Inc., Organizational Harmony (the predecessor of Kings Bridge
Incorporated), or Kings Bridge Incorporated. (8/22/03 Tr. at 212).
(1) Respondent submitted applications to both the SCSD and to the Upper
Dublin School District that included a letter of recommendation from
Rembold stating that Rembold worked with Respondent by establishing
two corporations, Organizational Harmony, Inc., now known as Kings
Bridge Inc., and PULSAR, Inc. (R -2, pages 13 -14). (8/22/03 Tr. at 96-
97; 8/22/03 Tr. at 140 -141).
(a) Respondent submitted this letter of recommendation to the Upper
Dublin School District after issues had arisen at the SCSD
regarding his relationship to Kings Bridge Incorporated.
f. Respondent testified that he was not a proprietor, shareholder, officer, director
or employee of Kings Bridge Incorporated. (8/21/03 Tr. at 82, 180, 190 -191,
196).
(1) Respondent testified that he was approached on numerous occasions
about being a Board member and investing in Kings Bridge Incorporated
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 99
g.
but that he indicated that all he wanted to do was be involved in the
program and substantiate the effectiveness of the program. (8/21/03 Tr.
at 180).
Respondent testified that in dealings involving the PULSAR Program, he did
not hold himself out as an agent, employee, director, officer or other affiliate of
Kings Bridge Incorporated.
(1) Respondent acknowledged discussing an intellectual copyright issue
with Brown but claimed that Brown's testimony regarding a proposed
pass- through fee arrangement between PULSAR and Kings Bridge
Incorporated was a fabrication.
h. Respondent testified that he was not involved in the negotiations or
formalization of the agreement between Kings Bridge Incorporated and
Mainstream Counseling, Incorporated, and was unaware of it prior to these
proceedings. (8/21/03 Tr. at 101; 8/22/03 Tr. at 125 -126).
(1) Woomer testified that she participated in discussions with some
combination of Respondent, Rembold and Thacker about formalizing a
relationship between Mainstream Counseling, Inc. and Kings Bridge
Incorporated. (See, Finding 177 h). (7/15/03 Tr. at 370 -371).
Respondent testified that he had no exposure or knowledge as to how the Kings
Bridge Incorporated corporate forms were being filed with the Commonwealth of
Virginia. (8/21/03 Tr. at 192).
(1) Respondent testified that around 1997, it came to his attention that he
was listed as a director of Kings Bridge Incorporated, and that he told
Thacker that he did not want to be a director, was not acting as a
director, and was going to stop doing work if Thacker did not take him off
as a director. (8/21/03 Tr. at 195; 8/22/03 Tr. at 92).
Respondent testified that ID -32 commencing with page 8 consists of copies of
documents recording work that he did for Kings Bridge Incorporated involving
research, data collection and the like.
(1) Respondent described the recorded entries as "expenses," but testified
that they included time and any out -of- pocket expenses for work done
when he was not working in his home office.
(2) Respondent testified that this work was done during evenings and
weekends.
(3) Respondent testified that he was dubious about whether and when he
would get paid for these "expenses," but Thacker told him to keep track
and that he would get paid when "we get them." (8/21/03 Tr. at 180-
181).
(4) Respondent testified that the rate at which he was to be compensated
for this work was $100.00 for a half day and $200.00 for an 8 -hour day.
(5)
Respondent testified that R -18 consists of samples of this work.
k. During the search for a SCSD superintendent that ultimately led to the hiring of
Respondent, one of the identified needs of the SCSD that was considered was
a need for student services. (R -1).
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 100
I. Respondent testified that R -2 was the full packet that he submitted when
applying for employment with the SCSD. (8/21/03 Tr. at 28, 35, 47).
(1) Respondent testified that he provided a copy of R -2 to each SCSD
Board member present at his interview on April 18, 1998. (8/21/03 Tr. at
47).
m. Respondent testified that two SCSD staff members who met with him during the
interview process had previously attended, in the fall of 1997, a PULSE session
that Respondent had been involved with. (R -10).
(1) Respondent testified that these two staff members were the Social
Worker, Ms. Bickert, and the School Psychologist Ms. Paula Gardner.
n. Respondent testified that R -11 consists of slides from the PowerPoint
presentation that he presented to the SCSD School Board on April 18, 1998, as
part of the interview process. (See, Finding 249).
(1) R -11 references support programs but does not specifically reference
the PULSE Program or Kings Bridge Incorporated. (See, Finding 249
a).
o. Respondent testified that during his presentation to the SCSD School Board on
April 18, 1998, he mentioned that he had been a paid trainer for Kings Bridge
Incorporated. (8/21/03 Tr. at 49 -50; 8/22/03 Tr. at 106, 118 -119).
(1) Respondent stated that there were at least eight or nine board members
present at his interview for the position of SCSD superintendent.
(8/22/03 Tr. at 113).
(2) Six of the SCSD School Board members who were involved in hiring
Respondent as SCSD superintendent testified in these proceedings,
half of whom were Respondent's own witnesses, and none of them
testified that Respondent disclosed during his interview for the position
that he was a paid trainer for Kings Bridge Incorporated. (8/22/03 Tr. at
105 -114).
Respondent's own witness, Louis Clippinger, participated in the
interviews and testified that Respondent made it known during the
interview process that he had some prior involvement with PULSE but
did not disclose whether he was affiliated with or receiving compensation
from Kings Bridge Incorporated.
(4) It is an undisputed fact that at the time of his interview in 1998
Respondent had never received any payments from Kings Bridge
Incorporated.
The first payment Respondent received from Kings Bridge Incorporated
was in January 2000, almost two years after the interview. (8/22/03 Tr.
at 61 -62, 172 -173).
(6) When asked how he could possibly have told the SCSD School Board
at the time of his interview that he was a paid trainer for Kings Bridge
Incorporated when he had not received a dime as of the interview date
from Kings Bridge Incorporated, Respondent's explanation, which
Respondent described as convoluted, was that even though he was
(3)
(5)
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 101
getting paid by other school districts and not by Kings Bridge
Incorporated at that time, the PULSE materials were owned by Kings
Bridge and it was his understanding that Kings Bridge had given
permission to do that work. (8/22/03 Tr. at 120).
P. Respondent testified that during the April 18, 1998, interview
presentation /discussion, he made it clear that he had been involved in writing
materials for both the PULSE and the PULSAR programs, was a trainer and
facilitator in regard to those programs, and was involved at that time in
conducting research to substantiate the work of those programs. (8/21/03 Tr. at
46 -49, 106).
q.
(1) Respondent testified that Porter specifically asked Respondent whether
Respondent wanted to bring the PULSE Program into the district, and
that he (Respondent) replied as follows:
My response to him was very clearly, I've had
background experience with this program, however, that
will be a decision that has to be made by this Board, by
the professional staff, and the community members of
Southern Columbia. Also, because of that background in
that area I have to take great steps to make sure that
whatever program we select, I'm clearly not involved in
the selection process.
(8/21/03 Tr. at 48, lines 6 -14).
(2) Porter testified that he first became aware of Kings Bridge Incorporated
on or about July 17, 2000, when he saw it listed on an SCSD bill list for
a bill in the amount of $6,000. (See, Finding 173 r). (7/15/03 Tr. at 116).
Respondent further testified as to the events of the April 18, 1998, interview
and discussions that he specifically mentioned his desire to continue doing the
outside work that he had already begun:
What I did mention that morning in subsequent conversations
was that I have a desire to continue, if it would meet the Board's
needs, the work I had done. It was not an issue of doing new
work, to complete the work I had done, because I was very
attached to that.
And therefore, because of that, the statement I made
earlier in regard to separating out my belief about the pertinent
decision, that Southern had to make that, was emphasized.
Clearly, at that point, they knew that.
(8/21/03 Tr. at 49, lines 11 -22).
r. Respondent testified that after the position of SCSD superintendent had been
offered to him, he spent a day with SCSD School Board President Schlesinger
during which they talked about the PULSE Program, the fact that Respondent
had worked under contract with Kings Bridge Incorporated, and the need to be
very careful about Respondent's involvement with this particular group.
(8/21/03 Tr. at 52 -54; 8/22/03 Tr. at 107).
(1) Respondent testified that in his discussions with Schlesinger on that
day, he (Respondent) talked about wanting to continue to render
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 102
consulting services on a private, non - district basis. (8/21/03 Tr. at 52-
53).
(2) Schlesinger testified that during his service on the SCSD School Board,
he only heard of PULSE two times: the first time when he saw it in the
documentation by which Respondent applied for the position of SCSD
superintendent, and the second time during a presentation by Breslin to
the SCSD School Board, when Breslin briefly explained the program
and mentioned that Respondent had been one of the founders of that
program. (See, Finding 194 d). (7/18/03 Tr. at 11, 15 -16).
s. Respondent testified that a paragraph was included in his contract with the
SCSD specifically for the purpose of allowing Respondent to continue to
provide consulting services on a private, non - district basis, and that he
(Respondent) expressed that he only wanted to continue to work with what he
had started. (8/21/03 Tr. at 52 -55).
(1) On direct examination, Respondent testified as to his understanding of
paragraph D 3 of his contract with the SCSD (ID -5) as follows:
Q. Your understanding of that paragraph was what?
A. That clearly the full -time job or attention would be
with regard to work for Southern Columbia School District,
but that I would also be allowed to continue to work with
King's Bridge.
Q. The work which was in progress, the type of work
which you were doing could continue?
A. Yes.
Q. If you were to get into any new direction what
would you have to do?
A. I would go before the Board, there was a formal
process.
(8/21/03 Tr. at 54 -55). (See, Finding 205 d).
t. The SCSD did not have a PULSE Program before the Respondent came to the
SCSD.
(1) Respondent testified that there was a "DARE Program" in place at the
SCSD when Respondent became superintendent.
(2) Respondent testified that the DARE Program continued as long as he
was at the SCSD but that "we" continued to modify and adjust it in light
of the work that was taking place. (8/21/03 Tr. at 126).
u. Respondent testified that R -12 consists of goals that were established for each
of the school years during his tenure as SCSD superintendent. (8/21/03 Tr. at
57).
(1) Respondent testified that these goals were developed with insight from
the professional staff and were presented to and agreed upon by the
SCSD School Board. (8/21/03 Tr. at 57).
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 103
(a) On cross - examination, Respondent acknowledged that the
SCSD School Board did not take a formal vote to adopt the goals
and objectives. (8/22/03 Tr. at 158).
(2) The document introduced into evidence as R -12 did not come from the
SCSD but was in Respondent's possession. (8/22/3 Tr. at 159 -160).
(3) The PULSE Program is mentioned in the proffered goals, but there is no
mention of Kings Bridge Incorporated or any other vendor. (8/21/03 Tr.
at 59 -60; 8/22/03 Tr. at 160 -161).
(4) Respondent testified that SCSD Board President Roadarmel requested
that the goal documents be laminated and placed in front of the board
members and administrators at each board meeting. (8/21/03 Tr. at 61-
62).
(a) When Roadarmel, who was Respondent's witness, testified in
these proceedings, he never testified that he asked that the goals
be laminated and placed before the board at every meeting.
(8/22/03 Tr. at 161 -162).
(b) Roadarmel testified as follows:
Q. Do you recall at the time that the PULSE program
was established whether goals were established for that
program?
A. Goals for the PULSE program?
Q. Yes.
A. I honestly don't recall.
(7/18/03 Tr. at 22, lines 14 -19).
v. Respondent testified that the first step in developing programs at the SCSD
during his tenure was to have groups working on various topics with
administrators leading those groups.
w. Respondent testified that the group focusing on student support systems
investigated various possibilities, and that the PULSE Program was selected by
this group after investigating some of the other programs.
(1) Respondent testified that he does not believe he brought up the PULSE
Program and that in one discussion he made it very clear that he "had
had involvement previously and that they needed to look at that very
closely and very clearly." (8/21/03 Tr. at 117).
(2) Respondent acknowledged that he suggested to the group that they may
want to look at the PULSE Program.
Respondent acknowledged that he contributed some knowledge of the
PULSE Program to the SCSD.
(4) Respondent testified that he did not mandate to the group that they use
the PULSE Program.
(3)
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 104
x. Respondent testified that he told Breslin to make the final decision about using
the PULSE Program and to make that decision separate and apart from
Respondent because of Respondent's involvement with PULSE and Kings
Bridge Incorporated.
Respondent testified that the group chose to use the PULSE survey to conduct
a needs assessment.
y.
(1) Respondent testified that the results of the survey are at R -15.
(2) Respondent testified that the use of the PULSE survey required only
secretarial time and postage, was less costly to the SCSD than using a
survey through a private contract, and did not result in any payments to
Kings Bridge Incorporated.
z. Respondent testified that the SCSD School Board was apprised that the
professionals would like to pursue the PULSE Program.
aa. Respondent testified that the SCSD School Board formally voted to accept
implementation of the PULSE Program. (8/22/03 Tr. at 141 -142).
(1) Respondent acknowledged that there are no minutes of any meetings
reflecting such a vote. (8/22/03 Tr. at 141 -142).
bb. Respondent testified that the SCSD School Board stated that it would support
the PULSE Program, not with SCSD monies, but with contributions from the
community and grants.
cc. Respondent testified that throughout the whole process, he made it clear to the
SCSD School Board and employees that he had some involvement with the
PULSE Program and the Board had to be very clear about wanting the
program.
dd. Respondent specifically testified that he was not instrumental in implementing
the PULSE program at the SCSD:
Q. Doctor Wilcox, isn't it true that in reality, you were instrumental in
implementing the PULSE program at Southern Columbia?
A. No, sir. I respectfully disagree with you.
(8/22/03 Tr. at 129).
ee. In the application that Respondent submitted for his current position as
superintendent of the Upper Dublin School District, which is in evidence as ID-
61, Respondent stated: "I have been instrumental in successfully implementing
Pulse and Communities that Care at Southern Columbia." (ID -61, pages 16-
17). (8/22/03 Tr. at 129 -138, 213).
ff. The SCSD School Board did not formally vote to apply for grants.
(1) Respondent testified that to his knowledge, the SCSD did not apply for
any grant without first confirming it with the SCSD School Board.
Respondent acknowledged that as SCSD superintendent, he had supervisory
responsibility in the decision making to pursue a grant.
gg .
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 105
JJ
hh. Respondent testified that a school district superintendent is required to sign
grant applications of the school district.
ii. Respondent testified that he delegated the writing and coordination of grant
applications to administrative and support staff at the SCSD, as opposed to
writing grants or coordinating the grant application process himself. (8/22/03 Tr.
at 155).
(1) Respondent initially testified that he delegated these responsibilities not
only as to PULSE related grants but also as to grants generally at the
SCSD. (8/21/03 Tr. at 131 -134; 8/22/03 Tr. at 154 -155).
(2) In his application to the Upper Dublin School District, Respondent
stated: "While at Southern Columbia, I have been responsible for writing
and coordinating grants that exceed $1.5 million for the school district . .
.." (ID -61, page 17). (8/22/03 Tr. at 157).
(a) When questioned regarding the disparity between his testimony
and his statement in ID -61, Respondent stated that he wrote
some technology grants and that as superintendent, he was
often the person responsible s the supervisor for all the programs
that were implemented. (8/22/03 Tr. at 157, 216 -217).
Breslin testified that Respondent gave him the name of the vendor of Kings
Bridge Incorporated to include in grant applications. (8/22/03 Tr. at 150 -153).
(1) Respondent testified that he did not direct Breslin to insert the vendor's
name of Kings Bridge Incorporated into grant applications. (8/22/03 Tr.
at 226).
kk. At the November 9, 1998, meeting of the SCSD School Board, Breslin reported
to the board that he was in the process of applying for a grant to support the
PULSE Program. (8/21/03 Tr. at 142).
(1) Breslin testified that Respondent instructed him to give this report to the
SCSD School Board. (7/16/03 Tr. at 74 -75).
(2) Respondent testified that he did not command Breslin to make a
presentation to the SCSD School Board regarding the PULSE Program
but rather assigned it to him, as Breslin was leading the student services
group. (8/22/03 Tr. at 148, 225 -226).
II. ID -24 pertains to the first Safe School Grant with which Respondent had
involvement at the SCSD.
(1) The initial application was submitted prior to Respondent's arrival at the
SCSD.
(2) Per the Pennsylvania Department of Education, the SCSD was required
to correct errors in the application.
Respondent testified that he worked with Breslin in revising the
application.
(4) The PULSE Program was added to this grant in the late fall or early
winter of the 1998 -1999 school year.
(3)
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 106
(5)
mm. The grants documented by ID -14, ID -16, ID -18, and ID -22 identified PULSE as
an operating program.
(1) The grants documented by ID -16 and ID -18 identified Kings Bridge
Incorporated as the vendor of the PULSE program.
(2) Respondent testified that to the best of his knowledge for the grant
documented by ID -22, the PULSE Program was being done in -house
and monies were not going to Kings Bridge Incorporated from the grant.
Respondent testified that Breslin prepared the grant applications for all
of these grants.
(4) Respondent testified that he was listed as program director for the grant
at ID -18 because Breslin was applying for positions in other school
districts and the program director was actually a contact person.
nn. The grants documented by ID -17 and ID -23 identified PULSE as an operating
program.
(3)
(1) Respondent indicated that Breslin's successor, Hoffner, was involved
with these grant applications.
(2) Respondent testified that he was listed as program director for the grant
at ID -17 because it was Hoffner's first 9rant application and it was
probably copied from previous applications when Breslin was in
transition and Respondent's name was used.
(a) Respondent testified that in actuality, the program director was
Hoffner as special education /student services director.
The initial grant application for ID -17 identified Kings Bridge Incorporated
as the vendor of the PULSE program. (8/21/03 Tr. at 160).
(4) Respondent testified that Kings Bridge Incorporated was not actually
used as a provider for the 9rant documented by ID -17 (the SCSD's
2000 -2001 Safe Schools Initiative Grant). (8/21/03 Tr. at 160).
(a) Respondent initially testified that the vendor for the PULSE
Program was changed from Kings Bridge Incorporated to
Mainstream Counseling for the reason that the grant award that
was received was less than what had been requested. (8/21/03
Tr. at 160 -161; 8/22/03 Tr. at 203).
(b) Respondent further testified that other reasons for the selection
of Mainstream Counseling over Kings Bridge Incorporated were
that: (1) Woomer had been involved in the district under the
Communities that Care Program, and parents wanted her to be
involved in working with teachers and students; and (2) Woomer
had expertise in areas of concern to the SCSD. (8/21/03 Tr. at
98 -101, 104, 162 -163; 8/22/03 Tr. at 202 -203, 232).
(3)
Respondent testified that to the best of his recollection, no monies were
paid to Kings Bridge Incorporated from this particular grant.
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 107
(1) Woomer had previously worked with Respondent at
PULSE trainings involving the SCSD for which Kings
Bridge Incorporated was the vendor. (See, Findings 177
p -q, 200 uu -ww; ID -8, pages 60, 75).
(2) Woomer testified that Respondent requested that
Mainstream Counseling generate the February 2001
billing, but that she does not recall any contacts or
conversations with Respondent regarding the change of
vendors in the grant documents. (See, Findings 177 n(5),
o).
(c) Respondent asserted that he was not aware that 95% of the
payment to Mainstream Counseling under this grant went to
Kings Bridge Incorporated. (8/22/03 Tr. at 204).
Respondent testified that for the grant documented by ID -23, the
PULSE Program was being done in -house and involvement by Kings
Bridge Incorporated was not necessary.
oo. The grant documented by ID -26 was a 21 Century Community Learning
Center Grant.
pp.
qq.
(5)
(1) The grant application indicated that the PULSE Program would be
involved under the grant.
(2) Respondent testified that Kings Bridge Incorporated would not have
been involved under this grant because the nature of the involvement of
the PULSE Program would not have required a vendor.
(3) Modifications were submitted to the grant application.
(4) Porter raised concerns regarding this grant application based upon
Respondent's role.
(5) The program officer in charge of the grant for the federal government
was Peter Eldridge ( "Eldridge ").
(a) On June 12, 2001, SCSD Solicitor Richard Roberts wrote
Eldridge to advise him of Wilcox's situation with Kings Bridge and
inquire as to any problems it may pose with the grant award.
(See, Finding 105).
(6) Eldridge issued to the SCSD Solicitor the correspondence dated June
15, 2001, that is in evidence as R -17. (See, Finding 250).
(7) The 21 Century grant paperwork did not identify Kings Bridge
Incorporated as a contract vendor.
(8) During this time period, Respondent was transitioning from the SCSD
for a new superintendency at another school district.
Respondent testified that the SCSD School Board was required to take action
to accept grants.
Grant monies went into the general treasury of the SCSD, but they were
earmarked for specific accounts or programs.
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 108
(1) The SCSD approved expenditures from grants as part of bill lists
identifying vendors and amounts.
(2) Respondent's approval on a bill indicated that the services or materials
had been provided and were satisfactory.
rr. Respondent testified that when the first bill came from Kings Bridge
Incorporated, he asked Springer whether it had to be publicly bid. (8/21/03 Tr.
at 231; 8/22/03 Tr. at 164 -165, 233 -234).
(1) Respondent testified that Springer replied that it was for
professional /consulting services and did not need to be bid. (8/21 /03 Tr.
at 232; 8/22/03 Tr. at 164 -165).
(2) Respondent testified that he further questioned Springer whether his
(Respondent's) involvement as a paid consultant for Kings Bridge
Incorporated would make a difference as to bidding requirements.
(8/21/03 Tr. at 232; 8/22/03 Tr. at 165).
(a) Respondent testified that Springer's response was that he did not
believe it would make a difference. (8/21/03 Tr. at 232).
Respondent testified that he pursued the matter further by asking
Springer whether the question of bidding should be reviewed with the
solicitor. (8/21/03 Tr. at 232 -233).
(a) Respondent testified that Springer's response was that he
thought they were okay and did not need to get assistance.
(8/21/03 Tr. at 233).
(4) Respondent testified that his belief was that he did everything he could
to make sure that Springer know of his relationship with Kings Bridge,
but that he did not have a specific conversation with Springer asking
whether he was aware of it. (8/21/03 Tr. at 234).
Springer's testimony as to this conversation was that Respondent never
mentioned Kings Bridge Incorporated to Springer at that time and that it
was Springer's understanding that Respondent was a trainer for the
PULSE program and would be providing PULSE related training for the
SCSD in his role as superintendent for his salary as superintendent.
(8/22/03 Tr. at 167 -168; 7/15/03 Tr. at 271 -273).
ss. Respondent testified that initially when he was asked by Kings Bridge
Incorporated to be a trainer at sessions involving the SCSD, he stated that he
did not want to do so because he wanted to have a separation of his
involvement with the program. (8/21/03 Tr. at 223, 226).
(1) Respondent testified that he did participate in SCSD PULSE trainings
because the SCSD received discounts from Kings Bridge Incorporated
based upon Respondent's participation. (8/21/03 Tr. at 223 -230).
(2) Respondent testified that prior to the SCSD entering into a contract with
Kings Bridge Incorporated to implement the PULSE Program, he
informed the SCSD School Board during discussions regarding the
discount that he had been acting as a paid trainer for Kings Bridge
Incorporated. (8/22/03 Tr. at 118).
(3)
(5)
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 109
tt. Respondent testified that when Kings Bridge Incorporated did work related to
the SCSD, he did not get paid for his services. (8/21/03 Tr. at 225 -226).
uu. The first PULSE training that Kings Bridge Incorporated did for the SCSD was
on January 11 -13, 2000.
(1) Respondent performed program responsibilities in relation tothattraining
session.
(2) The SCSD issued a check dated January 7, 2000, to Kings Bridge
Incorporated for the January 11 -13, 2000, training event. (ID -9, page
12).
The first payment Respondent ever received from Kings Bridge
Incorporated was dated January 25, 2000, approximately 2% weeks
after the first payment was made by the SCSD to Kings Bridge
Incorporated for the first PULSE training performed for the SCSD. (ID-
8, page 59).
(4) The check to Respondent from Kings Bridge Incorporated was in the
amount of $3,500.00 and was issued on the same date as the checks
that were issued to other trainers at this event. (ID -8, pages 59 -63).
(a) None of these checks have any notation in the memo portion of
the check.
(3)
(5)
vv. After receiving his first payment from Kings Bridge Incorporated, which was
dated January 25, 2000, Respondent continued signing grant documents for
implementation of the PULSE program at the SCSD.
ww. PULSE training was conducted for the SCSD on May 9 -11, 2000.
(1) Respondent received a check from Kings Bridge Incorporated dated
May 10, 2000, in the amount of $4,000.00 with a notation "MS training"
in the memo section. (ID -8, page 74).
(2) The date on Respondent's check was the same date as other checks
that were issued by Kings Bridge Incorporated to trainers at this event.
(ID -8, pages 75 -79).
(a) The checks to the others, except for Rembold, had a notation of
"Consulting" even though they were for training.
(b) Rembold's check had a notation of "MS training." (ID -8, page
79).
(3)
Respondent asserts that his check was not for training services.
Respondent asserts that his check was not for training services.
xx. PULSE training was conducted for the SCSD Middle School on June 14 -15,
2000.
(1) Thacker and Rembold participated in this training.
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 110
YY.
(2) Rembold received a check from Kings Bridge Incorporated dated June
15, 2000, in the amount of $2,000.00 for this training. (ID -8, page 83).
(3) Thacker received a check from Kings Bridge Incorporated dated June
17, 2000, in the amount of $2,000.00. (ID -8, page 85).
(a) The notation on the check was "CONSULTING EXPENSE."
(4) Respondent received a check from Kings Bridge Incorporated dated
June 15, 2000, in the amount of $2,000.00. (ID -8, page 84).
(a) The notation on the check was "Consulting."
(5) Respondent asserts that his check was not for training services and that
he did not participate in the training on June 14 -15, 2000.
(a) Respondent testified that he assumed his check was for the
invoices that he had submitted to Thacker.
PULSE training was conducted for the SCSD on February 6 -8, 2001.
(1) Respondent received a check from Kings Bridge Incorporated dated
February 7, 2001, in the amount of $4,000.00 with the notation "Feb.
2001 consultant." (ID -7, page 30).
(2) A check was issued to Rembold in the same amount on the same date
with the same notation. (ID -7, page 29).
(3)
(a) The notation on the check was "CONSULTANTING [sic] -
SCMS."
Other checks were issued on the same date to PULSE trainers with the
same notations. (ID -7, pages 25 -28).
(4) Respondent asserts that his check was not for training services.
zz. Respondent testified that the checks he received from Kings Bridge
Incorporated that are in ID -8 were for the series of expense sheets that he had
submitted to Thacker.
aaa. Respondent testified that the check at ID -7, page 46 in the amount of
$6,000.00 was for authorship work that he did for the PULSE Plus 3 Program.
(8/21/03 Tr. at 239 -240).
(1) Respondent testified that PULSE Plus 3 was a new program in 2001.
8/21/03 Tr. at 240).
bbb. Respondent testified that Thacker indicated to him that the check in the amount
of $5,500.00 at ID-7, page 51 was for Respondent's dissertation (8/21/03 Tr. at
240 -241; 8/22/03 Tr. at 195, 219 -220), which conflicts with Thacker's
testimony and documentary evidence authored by Respondent as to the
purpose of this check.
(1) ID -55 is a letter dated June 2, 2001, which Thacker testified that he
received from the Respondent. (See, Finding 198 p, 239).
(2) The letter states, in substantive part:
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 111
(3)
Dear Mr. Thacker:
I am writing this letter to formally request payment for my
consulting work related to the PLUS 3 Program. As agreed upon
payment will occur in two billings at:
(1) $6,000 for research and curriculum writing conducted
during April and May of 2001, and
(2) $5,500 for further research, curriculum writing, and
presentations during June of 2001.
ID -55.
This letter makes no mention of Respondent's dissertation. (8/22/03 Tr.
at 196).
(4) Respondent testified that he wrote this letter because he was in the
process of purchasing a home and wanted evidence for a lender that he
had an account receivable. (8/22/03 Tr. at 218 -219).
ccc. Respondent testified that Thacker proposed paying him up to $10,000.00 for
his dissertation and that Respondent stated that whatever Thacker wanted to
pay him would be good.
ddd. Respondent testified that he made every attempt to pay for all of his personal
telephone calls at both Camp Hill School District and the SCSD and that he
may have overpaid in some cases.
(1) Unlike the Camp Hill School District, the SCSD did not have an
individual telephone line for the Respondent, requiring review of
extensive lists of telephone calls for the school district's basic number,
which lists are set forth in ID -33.
(2) Respondent testified that for some numbers that he called, some calls to
the number would be personal and others would be related to the
business of the school district.
(a) Respondent testified that such calls would definitely include calls
to Rembold and would also include calls to Thacker, although he
believed the calls he made from the SCSD to Thacker related to
SCSD business and not other business. (8/22/03 Tr. at 30).
eee. Respondent testified that he did not recall using any Camp Hill stationery and
that he did not use any SCSD stationery for personal use.
fff. Respondent never made any reimbursement to the Camp Hill School District of
any outside compensation he had earned.
(1) Respondent testified that when he worked at the Camp Hill School
District, he "flexed" his holiday time in order to perform student
leadership training in Pennsylvania and services in Cabell County.
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 112
(a) Respondent testified as to travel time that he never drove directly
from Camp Hill to Cabell County, but rather, drove from Camp
Hill to West Greene and from West Greene to Cabell County.
(2) Respondent testified that on November 6, 1997, he was at the West
Greene School District on business for Camp Hill during the day and
performed services for Cabell County at a state park north of Charleston
in the evening.
(a) Respondent testified that the work for Camp Hill involved
gathering information regarding "4 -MAT" training relative to his
duties at Camp Hill.
(3) Respondent testified that on November 7, 1997, he was performing
services for Cabell County using compensatory time from the Camp Hill
School District. (8/21/03 Tr. at 204 -205; 8/22/03 Tr. at 35 -36, 45).
ggg. Respondent testified as follows regarding outside training he performed while
employed by the SCSD.
(1) Respondent testified that March 4, 1999, was a snow day at the SCSD,
and that he worked for Cabell County in the evening. (8/21/03 Tr. at
206 -207).
(2) Respondent took leave from the SCSD on March 5, 1999.
(3) Respondent testified that on March 9, 2001, he was at the West Greene
School District during the day on business for the SCSD.
hhh. Respondent testified that there were errors in the dates entered on his expense
sheets at ID -32. (8/21/03 Tr. at 212).
(1) Respondent testified that the entry of February 9, 1998, should have
been February 7, 1998.
(a) On February 9, 1998, a long distance telephone call was placed
on Respondent's dedicated telephone line at the Camp Hill
School District to Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, to telephone
number (717) 267 -6320 at 10:27 a.m. (ID -30, page 29).
(2) Respondent testified that the entry of February 26, 1998, should have
been February 28, 1998.
(a) In his Answer to the Investigative Complaint, Respondent
averred that this date should have been February 27, 1998,
which he testified was a double error on his part.
Respondent testified that the entry of March 1, 1998, a Sunday, should
have been March 7, 1998.
Respondent testified that July 3, 1998, was a paid holiday for him.
Respondent testified that the entry of May 17, 1999, should have been
May 15, 1999.
(3)
(4)
(5)
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 113
Respondent testified that he received Statements of Financial Interests for
completion each year when he was employed at the Camp Hill School District
and the SCSD.
JJJ
(1) Respondent testified that it is his recollection that in 1997 he filed a
Statement of Financial Interests while employed at the Camp Hill School
District, and that he listed Kings Bridge Incorporated on that form with a
notation that it had come to his attention that he was listed as a director
but that he was not a director.
(2) Respondent testified that he did not initially list Kings Bridge
Incorporated or Cabell County as sources of income over the disclosure
threshold because he considered payments from these sources to be
expenses or to have been under the threshold because of expenses or
monies he paid out. (8/21/03 Tr. at 197 -199).
(a) The instructions to the forms state that disclosure of gross
income, including income in the nature of expenses, is required.
(8/22/03 Tr. at 66 -69).
For 1999, Respondent received a 1099 Form from Cabell County for
non - employee compensation in the amount of $1,500.00. (8/22/03 Tr.
at 74 -75, 79 -80).
(4) For 2000, Respondent received a 1099 Form from Cabell County for
non - employee compensation in the amount of $2,200.00. (8/22/03 Tr.
at 75 -76, 79 -80).
(a) Respondent testified that for this year, he disclosed this source
of income as Huntington School District. (8/22/03 Tr. at 76).
Respondent testified that he did not give the Statement of Financial
Interests forms the attention needed to complete them properly.
(8/22/03 Tr. at 63, 67 -68, 71, 79).
(6) Respondent amended his Statements of Financial Interests by letter
after Porter and the SCSD School Board raised questions in early April
2001. (8/22/03 Tr. at 81).
Respondent testified that he was involved with Tri- Chamber Foundation as the
representative from the Columbia County Montour Vocational Technical
School.
(3)
(5)
(1) Respondent was an incorporator of this non - profit corporation.
(2) Respondent served as the secretary of this entity during his service with
it.
kkk. Respondent testified that it was his understanding that the laptop computer he
received at the Superintendents' Technology Leadership Academy was the
property of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania but could move around with
him as long as he was employed as a superintendent in Pennsylvania.
(1) Respondent testified that at the Superintendents' Technology
Leadership Academy, no one told him that he could not take the laptop
with him as he moved from one superintendency to another. (8/21/03
Tr. at 251 -252).
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 114
(a) Respondent initially testified that Julie Tritt's statement at the
conference regarding the need to leave the laptop with the
employer school district when leaving the school district was not
as clearly stated as in her testimony. (8/22/03 Tr at 23 -24).
(b) Respondent subsequently testified that he arrived late at the
initial session and may not have heard everything she said.
(8/22/03 Tr. at 25).
(c) Respondent testified that the issue of the ultimate ownership of
the computer surfaced several times during the conference.
(8/22/03 Tr. at 25 -26).
(d) Respondent acknowledged that he was present at some point
during the conference when Julie Tritt made a statement about
the ownership of the computer. (8/22/03 Tr. at 26).
(2) Respondent testified that as he was preparing to leave the SCSD to
work for Upper Dublin, he spoke with Holly Jobe who stated that the
laptop was to remain at the SCSD and he would get a new one, but that
he should call the Department of Education. (8/21/03 Tr. at 255;
8/22/03 Tr. at 14 -15, 229).
(a) Respondent testified that Jobe was not definitive in her answer.
(8/22/03 Tr. at 229).
(b) Respondent testified that prior to leaving the SCSD, he made at
least one unsuccessful attempt to telephone Julie Tritt at the
Department of Education and then failed to follow up. (8/21/03
Tr. at 255; 8/22/03 Tr. at 15 -16).
(3)
Respondent took the laptop computer with him when he left the SCSD
knowing that there was a question as to where it belonged.
(a) Respondent testified that based upon the letter in evidence as R-
4, he took the computer with him after telling a subordinate staff
member to call him if it was supposed to be returned and he
would return it.
(b) Respondent had no written documentation of an offer to return
the computer if it belonged to the SCSD.
(4) Respondent testified that he used the laptop as his working computer at
Upper Dublin School District and did not use it for personal use.
(a) While Respondent was at the Upper Dublin School District and
had the laptop in his possession, it was not used for the business
of the SCSD and the SCSD did not have the use of it.
III. Respondent testified that after the issues before this Commission surfaced, he
returned some monies to Thacker and indicated that he would not do any
further work for Kings Bridge Incorporated until the issues before this
Commission were resolved.
mmm. Respondent testified that he issued a check to the West Greene School District
in the amount of $1211.97 as reimbursement of payments he had received
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 115
from that school district for private work unrelated to Kings Bridge Incorporated.
(R -20).
(1) Respondent testified that to his knowledge the check was never
negotiated.
201. Respondent is not credible.
a. Respondent specifically testified that he was not instrumental in implementing
the PULSE program at the SCSD, yet, when applying for a new job as
superintendent at Upper Dublin School District, Respondent specifically stated
that he was instrumental in successfully implementing PULSE at the SCSD.
(See, Findings 200 dd -ee).
b. Respondent testified that he delegated the writing and coordination of PULSE
and other grant applications to administrative and support staff at the SCSD, as
opposed to writing grants or coordinating the grant application process himself,
yet, when applying for a new job as superintendent at Upper Dublin School
District, asserted, 'While at Southern Columbia, I have been responsible for
writing and coordinating grants that exceed 1.5 million dollars for the school
district ...." (ID -61, page 17). (See, Finding 200 ii).
c. Respondent testified that during his presentation to the SCSD School Board on
April 18, 1998, he mentioned that he had been a paid trainer for Kings Bridge
Incorporated, yet: (1) Respondent's own witness, Louis Clippinger, participated
in the interviews and testified that Respondent made it known during the
interview process that he had some prior involvement with PULSE but did not
disclose whether he was affiliated with or receiving compensation from Kings
Bridge Incorporated; (2) none of the six board member witnesses who were
involved in hiring Respondent testified to such a disclosure; and (3) it is an
undisputed fact that at the time of his interview with the SCSD, Respondent had
never received any payment from Kings Bridge Incorporated. (See, Finding
200 o).
d. When asked how he could possibly have told the SCSD School Board at the
time of his interview that he was a paid trainer for Kings Bridge Incorporated
when he had not received any payment from Kings Bridge Incorporated as of
the interview date, Respondents explanation, which Respondent described as
convoluted, was that even though he was getting paid by other school districts
and not by Kings Bridge Incorporated at that time, the PULSE materials were
owned by Kings Bridge and it was his understanding that Kings Bridge had
given permission to do that work. (See, Finding 200 0(5)).
e. With regard to the grant documented by ID -17, Respondent's proffered reasons
for the change of vendor for the PULSE Program from Kings Bridge
Incorporated to Mainstream Counseling -- specifically, that the grant award was
less than what had been requested; parents wanted Woomer involved; and
Woomer had expertise in areas of concern to the SCSD (see, Finding 200
nn(4)) - -made no sense and were not credible because:
(1) With the change of vendor, the allocation for Mainstream Counseling
($11,000.00) was $1,000.00 higher than the allocation initially listed for
Kings Bridge Incorporated ($10,000.00) (see, Finding 217 I);
(2) Factually, Kings Bridge Incorporated still received $10,450.00 under this
grant through its pass - through arrangement with Mainstream
Counseling, Inc. (see, Finding 191 g(2));
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 116
Woomer had previously worked with Respondent at PULSE trainings
involving the SCSD for which Kings Bridge Incorporated was the vendor
(see, Findings 177 p -q, 200 uu -ww; ID -8, pages 60, 75);
(4) Woomer's participation as a trainer would have occurred under her
separate contract with Kings Bridge Incorporated in her capacity as an
individual, and would not have required any change to the listed program
vendor (see, Finding 177 I); and
Woomer testified that Respondent requested that Mainstream
Counseling generate the February 2001 billing, but that she does not
recall any contacts or conversations with Respondent regarding the
change of vendors in the grant documents. (See, Findings 177 n(5), o).
f. Respondent testified that he never served as an organizer or incorporator of
PULSAR, Inc., Organizational Harmony (the predecessor of Kings Bridge
Incorporated), or Kings Bridge Incorporated, yet in his applications submitted to
both the SCSD and to the Upper Dublin School District, included a letter of
recommendation from Rembold stating that Respondent worked with Rembold
by establishing two corporations, Organizational Harmony, Inc., now known as
Kings Bridge Inc., and PULSAR, Inc. (See, Finding 200 e).
(1) Respondent submitted this letter of recommendation to the Upper Dublin
School District after issues had arisen at the SCSD regarding his
relationship to Kings Bridge Incorporated. (See, Finding 200 e).
(3)
g.
(5)
Respondent has made inconsistent assertions regarding his status as a
Director of Kings Bridge Inc.
(1) In his response to the Findings in the Investigative Complaint and in his
testimony, Respondent has denied ever being a Director of Kings
Bridge, Inc. (See, Findings 171, 200 f -g).
(2) In his May 10, 2001, letter attached to amended Statements of Financial
Interests for calendar years 1998, 1999, and 2000, Respondent stated
that:
(3)
(a) He should have been removed as a director of Kings Bridge, Inc.,
beginning in 1998; and
(b) Upon learning that he was still listed as a director, he immediately
notified Kingsbridge Inc. to have his name deleted from all
current and past filings since 1998.
(See, Finding 210 a).
In Respondent's April 16, 2001, letter to Thacker (R -8), Respondent
stated that it was his understanding that he had been removed in the fall
of 1998 from that role (as a member of the Kings Bridge Board of
Directors). (See, Finding 248).
h. Respondent has made inconsistent /contradictory assertions regarding his
providing services related to the PULSE Program to the SCSD.
(1) In his May 10, 2001, letter amending Statements of Financial Interests
for calendar years 1998, 1999, and 2000, relative to his relationship with
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 117
Kings Bridge, Inc., Respondent stated that he had performed no
services for SCSD. (See, Finding 210 a).
(2) Respondent testified that he did participate in SCSD PULSE trainings
conducted by Kings Bridge Incorporated because the SCSD received
discounts from Kings Bridge Incorporated based upon Respondent's
participation. (See, Finding 200 ss(1)).
Respondent's testimony conflicts with Thacker's testimony and documentary
evidence authored by Respondent himself (ID -55) regarding the purpose of the
check in the amount of $5,500.00 at ID -7, page 51.
(1) Respondent's letter stated that he was owed this money for work related
to the PULSE PLUS 3 Program. (See, Finding 239).
(2) Thacker testified that he would draw the conclusion from ID -55 that
Respondent had an expectation of being paid for the services he was
rendering. (See, Finding 198 p(2)).
Respondent testified that Thacker told him the payment was for
Respondent's dissertation. (See, Finding 200 bbb).
(4) Respondent testified that he wrote this letter because he was in the
process of purchasing a home and wanted evidence for a lender that he
had an account receivable. (See, Finding 200 bbb(4)).
(3)
Respondent's testimony conflicts with credible evidence of record in this case.
C. Stipulations
202. Counsels for Respondent and for the Investigative Division stipulated as follows:
a. The signatures of Respondent's name on the following exhibits are
Respondent's signatures: ID -14, pages 3, 5, 28, 39, 41, and 43; ID -16, pages
9, 10, 11, 12 and 15; ID-17, pages 64 and 67; ID-18, pages 37, 47, 55, 63, 90,
91, 99 and 100; ID-22, pages 7 and 35; ID-23, page 24; ID-24, pages 3 and 20;
and ID -26, pages 1 and 2. (7/15/03 Tr. at 122-132, 134; stipulation of Counsel,
7/15/03 Tr. at 210 -211).
b. Respondent's initials appear on: ID-9, pages 2 and 6. (7/15/03 Tr. at 150 -152;
stipulation of Counsel, 7 /15/03 Tr. at 210 -211).
c. The signatures of Respondent's name that appear on the following exhibits are
Respondent's signatures: ID -14, pages 37 and 39; ID -16, pages 9 10 and 12;
ID -17, pages 30, 31 and 47; ID -18, pages 47, 55, 63, 71 and 90; ID -22, pages
7 and 35; ID -23, page 6; and ID -24, page 28. (7/16/03 Tr. at 88 -90).
203. R -5 is a sample of the current announcement issued by L. Michael Golden, Director,
Pennsylvania Office of Educational Technology, and Holly M. Jobe, IMS Director,
Montgomery County Intermediate Unit to invite prospective attendees to the
Superintendents' Technology Leadership Academy. (7/16/03 Tr. at 205). (See,
Finding 246).
204. The Investigative Complaint in this matter was issued on October 10, 2002. (7/16/03
Tr. at 219 -221).
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 118
D. Documents
205. ID -5 is a contract dated May 18, 1998, between Respondent and the SCSD for the
employment of Respondent as District Superintendent of the SCSD. (See, Findings
11, 173 e).
a. The contract is for a 5 -year term commencing July 14, 1998, and ending on
July 13, 2003. (ID -5, page 1).
b. Respondent's authority as SCSD Superintendent included serving as the Chief
Executive Officer with responsibility for the total day -to -day administration of the
SCSD. (ID -5, pages 2 -3).
c. Respondent's authority as SCSD Superintendent included organizing,
supervising, and arranging the administrative and supervisory staff. (ID -5, page
3).
d. The contract provides, in part, as follows:
3. The Superintendent agrees to devote his full time,
attention, energies, skills and labor to his employment as
Superintendent of the District during the term of this Agreement.
However, he may undertake consultative work, speaking
engagements, writing, lecturing or other professional duties and
obligations provided the Board is informed prior thereto and does
not direct him not to engage in such activities.
Contract for Employment of District Superintendent, Section D, paragraph 3
(ID -5, page 3).
206. ID -6 consists of certified copies of corporate records from the Commonwealth of
Virginia Corporation Commission pertaining to Kings Bridge, Inc.
a. The Articles of Incorporation are dated July 28, 1983. (ID -6, page 12).
b. The Articles of Incorporation were received at the Commonwealth of Virginia
State Corporation Commission on or about August 3, 1983.
c. The Certificate of Incorporation was issued on August 15, 1983.
d. The initial Board of Directors of Kings Bridge, Inc., consisted of two Directors,
namely, Charles Preston Rembold and R. Edgar Thacker. (Articles of
Incorporation of Kings Bridge, Inc., Article VI) (ID -6, page 12).
e. Thacker listed Rembold as an officer and director of Kings Bridge Incorporated
on corporate Annual Reports that he (Thacker) signed and filed with the
Commonwealth of Virginia State Corporation Commission for the years 1993
through 2000. (ID -6, pages 16 -31). (See, Finding 198 d(4)).
f. Thacker listed Respondent as a Director of Kings Bridge Incorporated on
corporate Annual Reports that he (Thacker) signed and filed with the
Commonwealth of Virginia State Corporation Commission for the years 1993
through 2000. (ID -6, pages 16 -31). (See, Finding 198 e(2)).
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 119
g.
Each of these Annual Reports bears the signature "R. Edgar Thacker" under a
statement affirming that the information contained in the report is accurate. (ID-
6, pages 16 -31).
h. The 1999 Annual Report filed on behalf of Kings Bridge, Inc. is dated July 13,
1999, and indicates a change of address for Respondent from a Virginia
address to the following Pennsylvania address: 20 Horizon Drive, Elysburg, PA
17824. (ID -6, pages 28 -29).
(1) The 1999 Annual Report indicates that Respondent was a director of
Kings Bridge, Inc. both before and after the address change. (ID -6,
page 29).
The 2001 Annual Report filed on behalf of Kings Bridge, Inc. is dated May 15,
2001, and indicates the removal of Rembold as an officer and director and the
removal of Respondent as a Director. (ID -6, pages 32 -33).
207. ID -7 consists of bank records from American Community Federal Credit Union of
Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, for the account(s) of Kings Bridge, Inc. under account
number 2571. (See, Finding 191 e).
a. Kings Bridge, Inc., opened a share account and a draft account with American
Community Federal Credit Union on June 23, 2000, with deposits of $8,750
and $7,000 respectively. (ID -7, page 1).
b. The following four checks were issued to Respondent by Kings Bridge, Inc.,
from the American Community Federal Credit Union account:
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE OF
CHECK
AMOUNT OF
CHECK
MEMO
NOTATION ON
CHECK
1006
8/15/00
$2,000.00
consultation
1020
2/7/01
$4,000.00
Feb. 2001
consultant
1035
6/15/01
$6,000.00
Plus 3
1041
7/6/01
$5,500.00
consultant &
expense (illegible)
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 120
c. In addition to Check No. 1020 issued to Respondent, there were 7 other checks
issued from the Kings Bridge, Inc., account to 7 other individuals or "Cash"
bearing the date "Feb. 7, 2001" and the notation "Feb. 2001 consultant" or
"Feb. 2001 consulting." (ID -7, pages 23 -29 and 31).
(1) Two of these checks, numbered 1013 and 1014, were in the amount of
$1,500.00 and were issued to Kathy Tweed and Kristine Caroppoli. (ID-
7, pages 23 -34).
(2) Four of these checks, numbered 1015, 1016, 1017 and 1018, were in
the amount of $3,000.00 and were issued to Lonnie Woomer, Linda
Jones, Art Waleski, and Brian Jackson. (ID -7, pages 25 -28).
Two of these checks, numbered 1019 and 1021, were in the same
amount as the check issued to Respondent, specifically, $4,000.00, and
were issued to Charles P. Rembold and "Cash." (ID -7, pages 29 and
31).
d. In addition to Check No. 1037 issued to Respondent, there were 4 other checks
issued from the Kings Bridge, Inc., account to 4 other individuals bearing the
date "July 6, 2001" and the notation "consultant" or "consultant & expenses."
(ID -7, pages 47 -50).
(1) Three of these checks, numbered 1037, 1038 and 1039, were in the
amount of $3,000.00 and were issued to Art Waleski, Linda Jones, and
Brian Jackson. (ID -7, pages 47 -49).
(2) One of these checks, numbered 1040, was in the same amount as the
check issued to Respondent, specifically, $5,500.00, and was issued to
Charles P. Rembold. (ID -7, page 50).
(a) While the three checks issued to Art Waleski, Linda Jones, and
Brian Jackson all bore the memo notation "consultant," the
checks issued to Respondent and Charles P. Rembold bore
(3)
MONTH
TOTAL DEPOSITS/
CREDITS
TOTAL CHECKS/
WITHDRAWALS
January 2000
$25,450.00
$4,762.00
February 2000
None
$19,305.00
March 2000
$12,000.00
$617.35
April 2000
$13,950.00
$900.00
May 2000
$12,825.00
$33,853.25
June 2000
$3,425.00
$11,000.00
July 2000
$38.00
$601.99
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 121
memo notations referencing consultant and expense(s). (ID -7,
pages 50 -51).
208. ID -8 consists of bank records from Dominion National Bank, subsequently First Union
National Bank of Virginia, for the business checking account of Kings Bridge, Inc.
under account number 2070418047188. (See, Finding 191 d).
a. A signature card was signed for the account on February 26, 1993. (ID -8, page
1).
b. Thacker and Rembold signed the signature card as authorized signatories on
the account. (ID -8, page 1).
c. The bank records include statements from January 1997 through and including
July 31, 2000, except for April 1997. (ID -8, pages 2 -53).
d. All of the account statements of record for 1997 show no activity in the account
except that in March 1997 one deposit was made and one check was
issued /paid, each being in the amount of $65.00. (ID -8, pages 2 -12).
(1) The beginning and ending statement balances for every month in 1997
were the same, specifically, $3,012.59. (ID -8, pages 2 -12).
e. The account statements for 1998 show no activity in the account except that in
August 1998 one deposit in the amount of $300.00 was made and two checks
totaling $195.00 were issued /paid. (ID -8, pages 13 -24).
f. The account statements for 1999 show no activity in the account except that in
July 1999 one check in the amount of $65.00 was issued; in November 1999
one commercial service charge in the amount of $1.00 was imposed; and in
December 1999 one deposit in the amount of $300.00 was made. (ID -8, pages
25 -39).
The account statements for 2000 show the following activity in the account
through July 2000 when the account was closed (ID -8, pages 40 -53):
g.
h. The following deposits were made into this account with checks received from
the sources indicated below (ID -8, pages 40 -53; 87 -105):
SOURCE(S)
OF DEPOSIT
SOURCE
CHECK NO.
DATE OF
SOURCE
CHECK
AMOUNT OF
CHECKIDEPOSI
T
DATE OF
DEPOSIT
Mainstream
6238
12/17/99
$8,550.00
Date on
Counseling Inc.
Deposit Ticket:
1/5/00
Date posted to
account:
1/6/00
CC Counseling,
Inc.
1726
1/7/00
$900.00
Date on
Deposit Ticket:
1/14/00
Date posted to
account:
1/14/00
SCSD
20175
January 2000—
precise date
$7,000.00
Date on
Deposit Ticket:
illegible
1/24/00
Huntingdon
Area School
61647
1/13/00
$9,000.00
Date posted to
account:
District
1/24/00
Huntingdon
62243
3/21/00
$12,000.00
Date on
Area School
De Ticket:
District
3/27/00
Date posted to
account:
3/27/00
Mainstream
6432
4/6/00
$8,550.00
Date on
Counseling Inc.
De Ticket:
4/17/00
Date posted to
account:
4/18/00
SCSD
20705
illegible
$5,400.00
Date on
Deposit Ticket:
4/25/00
Date posted to
account:
4/25/00
(table cont...)
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 122
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE OF
CHECK
AMOUNT OF
CHECK
MEMO
NOTATION ON
CHECK
1614
(cont. from
prior page...)
Mainstream
Counseling Inc.
6461
4/24/00
$8,550.00
Date on
Deposit Ticket:
5/1/00
Date posted to
account:
5/01/00
Mainstream
Counseling Inc.
6491
month is
illegible;
appears to be
5/8/00
$4,275.00
Date on
Deposit Ticket:
5/15/00
Date posted to
account:
5/15/00
Mainstream
Counseling,
Inc.
6544
6/1/00
$3,425.00
Date on
Deposit Ticket:
6/7/00
Date posted to
account:
6/7/00
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE OF
CHECK
AMOUNT OF
CHECK
MEMO
NOTATION ON
CHECK
1614
1/25/00
$3,500.00
none
1622
4/26/00
$900.00
consulting
1629
5/10/00
$4,000.00
M S Training
1640
6/15/00
$2,000.00
consulting
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 123
The following four checks were issued to Respondent by Kings Bridge, Inc.,
from the First Union National Bank of Virginia account:
In addition to Check No. 1614 issued to Respondent, there were 5 other checks
issued from the Kings Bridge, Inc., account to 5 other individuals bearing the
date "Jan. 25, 2000 with no notation. (ID -8, pages 58, 60 -63).
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 124
(1) Four of these checks, numbered 1615, 1616, 1617 and 1618, were in
the amount of $3,000.00 and were issued to Lonnie Woomer, Art
Waleski, Brian Jackson, and Linda Jones. (ID -8, pages 60 -63).
(2) One of these checks, numbered 1613, was in the same amount as the
check issued to Respondent, specifically, $3,500.00, and was issued to
Charles P. Rembold. (ID -8, page 58).
k. In addition to Check No. 1622 issued to Respondent, there was 1 other check
issued from the Kings Bridge, Inc., account to 1 other individual bearing the
date "April 26, 2000' and the notation "consulting." (ID -8, page 68).
(1) This check, numbered 1623, was in the same amount as the check
issued to Respondent, specifically, $900.00, and was issued to Brian
Jackson. (ID -8, page 68).
In addition to Check No. 1629 issued to Respondent, there were 5 other checks
issued from the Kings Bridge, Inc., account to 5 other individuals bearing the
date "May 10, 2000' and the notation "M S Training" or "consulting." (ID -8,
pages 75 -79).
(1) Four of these checks, numbered 1630, 1631, 1632 and 1633, were in
the amount of $4,250.00 and were issued to Lonnie Woomer, Linda
Jones, Brian Jackson, and Art Waleski. (ID -8, pages 75 -78).
(2) One of these checks, numbered 1634, was in the same amount as the
check issued to Respondent, specifically, $4,000.00, and was issued to
C. P. Rembold. (ID -8, page 79).
The four checks issued to Lonnie Woomer, Linda Jones, Brian Jackson,
and Art Waleski all bear the memo notation "consulting," and the checks
issued to Respondent and C. P. Rembold bear the memo notation "M S
Training." (ID -8, pages 74, 79).
(3)
m. In addition to Check No. 1640 issued to Respondent, there was 1 other check
issued from the Kings Bridge, Inc., account bearing the date "June 15, 2000"
and a notation referencing consulting. (ID -8, page 83).
(1) This check, numbered 1639, was in the same amount as the check
issued to Respondent, specifically, $2,000.00, and was issued to Chuck
Rembold. (ID -8, page 83).
(2) The check issued to Respondent bears the memo notation "consulting,"
and the check issued to Chuck Rembold bears the memo notation
"consultanting [sic] - SCMS." (ID -8, pages 83 -84).
Another check numbered 1641 and dated two days later, specifically,
June 17, 2000, was issued to R. Edgar Thacker in the amount of
$2,000.00.
(a) This check bears the memo notation "consulting expense." (ID-
8, page 85).
n. In 2000 Rembold signed checks drawn from this account. (See, ID -8, pages
55, 57, 66, 85).
(3)
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 125
209. ID -9 consists of true and correct copies of SCSD records including duplicate check
copies, invoices, and cancelled checks for payments by the SCSD to Kings Bridge
Incorporated and Mainstream Counseling, Inc. for PULSE training. (See, Finding 174
m).
a. ID -9, page 8 is an invoice numbered 58017 dated 12/20/99 from Kings Bridge,
Inc. to SCSD in the total amount of $7,000.00.
(1) The description on this invoice is as follows:
PULSE Team training for 19 individuals on Level 2, PULSE
training program; registration materials and fees; administrative
fees; training documents and materials; three days of training to
be conducted on January 11, 12, and 13, 2000 by 3 consultants;
consultant planning day for March 14, 15, 16, 2000.
(preparation for Mar. trng w /students)
(2) The invoice reflects a reduction of $11,000.00 from a charge of
$18,000.00, with the notation "Fee reduced /in kind contribution."
ID -9, pages 7, 12 -13 consist of a check numbered 20175 dated 1/7/00
from the SCSD to Kings Bridge, Inc., in the amount of $7,000.00, with
voucher referencing invoice no. 58017.
(3)
b. ID -9, page 2 is an invoice numbered 58022 dated 3/31/00 from Kings Bridge,
Inc. to "Southern Columbia Area Schools" in the total amount of $5,400.00.
(1) The description on this invoice is as follows:
PULSE team training; registration materials, manuals & p rogram
documents; 2 consultants for 2 1/2 days and 1 day of prep &
planning for the period of March 14 -15 -16 (prep & planning day
conducted on Feb. 23, 2000)
(2) The bottom of the invoice bears the handwritten notation "SW
OK."
(2) ID -9, pages 1, 14 -15 consist of a check numbered 20705 dated 4/6/00
from the SCSD to Kings Bridge, Inc., in the amount of $5,400.00, with
voucher referencing invoice no. 58022.
c. ID -9, page 4 is an invoice numbered 58028 dated 5/22/00 from Kings Bridge,
Inc. to "Southern Columbia Area Schools" in the total amount of $7,000.00.
(1) The description on this invoice is as follows:
PULSE Program training for Middle School students on May 9-
10 -11, 00 at Masonic Retreat Center in Elizabethtown, PA.
Registration, room for training, materials and PULSE Program
documents and 2 consultants.
(2) The invoice reflects a reduction of $2,000.00 from a charge of
$9,000.00, with the notation "Reduced fee for in kind services."
(3)
The bottom of the invoice bears the handwritten notation "SW."
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 126
(4) ID -9, pages 3, 16 -17 consist of a check numbered 21037 dated 6/7/00
from the SCSD to Kings Bridge, Inc., in the amount of $7,000.00, with
voucher referencing invoice no. 58028.
d. ID -9, page 6 is an invoice numbered 58032 dated 6/19/00 from Kings Bridge,
Inc. to "Southern Columbia Area Schools" in the total amount of $6,000.00.
(1) The description on this invoice is as follows:
Provide Middle School PULSE training on June 14 & 15 for 35
faculty participants; one consultant planning day; all materials &
documents for training and supplies for participants.
(2) The invoice reflects a waiver of an "administrative fee" in the amount of
$420.00.
(3)
(4)
e. ID -9, page 10 is an invoice numbered 8501 dated 2/6/01 from Mainstream
Counseling, Inc. to SCSD in the total amount of $11,000.00.
(1) The description on this invoice is as follows:
PULSE Training for 2 Teams (1 High School /1 Middle School) at
$9,000.00 each Team Training
(2) The invoice reflects a reduction of $7,000.00 from a charge of
$18,000.00, with the notation "In -Kind Contribution (food /trainer)."
ID -9, pages 9, 20 -21 consist of a check numbered 22632 dated 2/7/01
from the SCSD to Mainstream Counseling, Inc., in the amount of
$11,000.00, with voucher referencing invoice no. 8501.
210. ID -10 consists of true and correct copies of Statements of Financial Interests and
amended Statements of Financial Interests filed by Respondent with the SCSD for
calendar years 1998, 1999 and 2000. (See, Findings 121 -122, 128, 174 w).
a. Attached to Respondent's amended Statements of Financial Interests for
calendar years 1998, 1999 and 2000 are identical letters dated May 10, 2001,
from Respondent directed "to whom it may concern," which letter states as
follows:
(3)
The bottom of the invoice bears the handwritten notation "SW."
ID-9, pages 5, 18 -19 consist of a check numbered 21223 dated 6/28/00
from the SCSD to Kings Bridge, Inc., in the amount of $6,000.00, with
no invoice reference on the voucher.
This letter is being written to explain my Statements of
Financial Interest under the Pennsylvania Public Official and
Employee Ethics Act for years 1998, 1999, and 2000.
It has come to my attention that I may have made a
technical error on entering information for item number 14 on that
form for the years 1998 and 1999 as well as item number 13 for
the year 2000. Said items require disclosure of business
relationships including corporate directorships. My response was
"none." I continue to believe that I hold no such position.
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 127
However, I was informed that I am listed on a Virginia
State filing as "director" for Kingsbridge Inc. a Virginia
Corporation, with which I have been associated for Student
Leadership Training. Such listing was performed without
knowledge or consent and contrary to my explicit directions. It
was my understanding that I should have been removed as a
director beginning in 1998. Upon learning of this development, I
immediately notified Kingsbridge Inc. to have my name deleted
from all current and past filings since 1998.
It is my understanding that the Virginia Annual report form
originates at the Virginia State Corporation Commission and is
received with names of officers and directors already entered —
apparently based on prior years reports. Until presently, I never
saw any such reports and never participated in their return or
filing. The form, together with the registration fee, is required
annually and has been submitted by others without my consent.
To the best of my knowledge, the corporation does not
hold meetings of either stockholders or directors. I have not
received notice of such nor have I attended any meetings of such
nature for years. I do not participate in any aspect of corporate
operations or business policy making. I do not perform any
duties as an officer or director.
My association with Kingsbridge Inc. has been strictly to
benefit students. I own no stock or equity or other financial
interest in Kingsbridge Inc. and have received no bonuses, nor
publication of the business. I have no contractual or other
expectations of pecuniary gain for being associated with the
organization. My relationship with Kingsbridge Inc. is strictly in
the areas of research and training. When performing services I
have receive [sic] payment for work actually performed and
reimbursement for out -of pocket expenses related to supporting
the Student Leadership Programs. I have performed no services
for Southern Columbia Area School District nor received any
compensation for the Corporation's services at said district.
Sincerely
[signature]
Steve Wilcox, Ed.D.
(ID -10, pages 4, 6, 9).
211. ID -11 consists of true and correct copies of SCSD records of the W -2 Wage and Tax
Statements issued by the SCSD to Respondent for the years 1998, 1999, 2000 and
2001. (See, Finding 174 x).
212. ID -12 consists of certified records of the Cabell County Schools of Huntington, West
Virginia, pertaining to services rendered by the Respondent.
a. In 1997 Respondent provided services as an independent contractor to the
Cabell County Schools on November 6 -8, 1997. (ID -12, page 3).
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 128
(1) Respondent billed the CabeII County Schools for half days on
November 6 and 8 and for a full day on November 7, 1997. (ID -12,
page 3).
(2) Respondent's total fee for services rendered to the CabeII County
Schools on November 6 -8, 1997, was in the amount of $1295.00, which
included $500 for November 7 as a full day of training; $250 each for
November 6 and 8 as half days; $50 for meals while in travel; and $245
for mileage /travel reimbursement designated as 855 miles round trip.
(ID -12, page 3).
Respondent's total compensation from the CabeII County Schools in
1997 was in the amount of $1295.00. (ID -12, page 2).
(3)
b. In 1999 Respondent provided services as an independent contractor to the
CabeII County Schools on March 4 -6, 1999. (ID -12, page 15).
(1) Respondent's total fee for services rendered to the CabeII County
Schools on March 4 -6, 1999, was in the amount of $1500.00. (ID -12,
page 15).
(2) Per the Consultant Services Agreement signed by Respondent, this fee
was to include travel and all other expenses incurred in performing the
services. (ID -12, page 15).
Respondent's total compensation from the Cabell County Schools in
1999 was in the amount of $1500.00. (ID -12, page 13).
c. In 2000 Respondent provided services as an independent contractor to the
Cabell County Schools on March 23 -25, 2000. (ID -12, page 21).
(1) Respondent's total fee for services rendered to the Cabell County
Schools on March 23 -25, 2000, was in the amount of $2200.00. (ID-
12, page 21).
(2) Respondent's total compensation from the Cabell County Schools in
2000 was in the amount of $2200.00. (ID -12, page 20).
d. In 2001 Respondent provided services as an independent contractor to the
Cabell County Schools on March 9 -11, 2001. (ID -12, page 32).
(1) Respondent's total fee for services rendered to the Cabell County
Schools on March 9 -11, 2001, was in the amount of $2600.00. (ID-12,
page 32).
(2) Per the Consultant Services Agreement signed by Respondent, this fee
was to include travel and all other expenses incurred in performing the
services. (ID -12, page 32).
Respondent's total compensation from the Cabell County Schools in
2001 was in the amount of $2600.00. (ID -12, page 29).
(3)
(3)
213. ID -13 is a certified copy of Agreement Number 116197503 between the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Education and the SCSD.
a. Agreement Number 116197503 is a 5 -year agreement for the term July 1,
1998, to June 30, 2003. (ID -13, page 2).
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 129
b. Agreement Number 116197503 pertains to various state and federal grant
funds distributed to SCSD as a grant recipient.
c. Agreement Number 116197503 includes a "Contractor Integrity Provision" that,
per the definition of "Contractor," is applicable to the SCSD as a Grant
Recipient as well as to its directors, officers, managers, and key employees.
(ID-13, pages 9 -11).
(1) The Contractor Integrity Provision provides, inter alia, as follows:
g.
Except with the consent of the Commonwealth, the
contractor shall not have a financial interest in any other
contractor, subcontractor, or supplier providing services,
labor, or material on this project.
(Commonwealth's "Contractor Integrity" Provision, paragraph g, ID -13,
page 11).
(2) The Contractor Integrity Provision defines the term "financial interest" as
follows:
(4) Financial Interest means:
(a) ownership of more than a 5% interest in any
business; or
(b) holding a position as an officer, director, trustee,
partner, employee, or the like, or holding any
position of management.
(Contractor Integrity Provision, paragraph a(4), ID -13, page 10).
214. ID -14 consists of certified copies of records of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Commission on Crime and Delinquency pertaining to Subgrant Number 98- SC -01-
9581 awarded to the SCSD. (See, Finding 176 b).
a. The subgrant was awarded under the federally funded "Safe and Drug -Free
Schools and Communities Act." (ID -14, page 36).
b. The funds requested by SCSD totaled $28,153.00. (ID -14, page 2).
(1) Of the $28,153.00 requested, $10,500.00 was allocated for
"Consultants." (ID -14, page 2).
c. The amount of $41,313.00 was requested initially. (ID -14, page 6).
(1) No changes were made to the consultant allocation. (ID-14, pages 6 -7).
d. The Project Title is "PULSE (People Utilizing Leadership Skills Effectively)
Program." (ID -14, page 2).
e. The contact person is listed as James M. Breslin, Director of Special
Education /Student Services at the SCSD.
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 130
f. The "Consortium Participation Agreement" portion of the Subgrant Application
is signed by Respondent as Superintendent of the SCSD. (ID -14, pages 3,
The Subgrant Application includes "Standard Subgrant Conditions" with the
following conflict of interest provision:
Conflict of Interest — Requests for proposals (RFPs) for bids
issued by the Applicant to implement the project shall provide
notice to prospective vendors that the federal Organizational
Conflict of Interest Guideline is applicable and that contractors
that develop or draft specifications, requirements, statements of
work and /or RFPs for a proposed procurement shall be excluded
from bidding or submitting a proposal to compete for the award of
such contract.
g.
(Standard Subgrant Conditions, Conflict of Interest provision, ID -14,
page 30, paragraph "d. ")
h. The Standard Subgrant Conditions include "Integrity Provisions" that, per the
definition of "Applicant," are applicable to the SCSD as a Subgrant Recipient as
well as to its directors, officers, managers, and key employees. (ID -14, pages
33 -34).
(1) One such Integrity Provision provides as follows:
(7)
Except with the consent of the Commonwealth, the
Applicant shall not have a financial interest in any other
contractor, subcontractor, or supplier providing services,
labor, or material on this project.
(Standard Subgrant Conditions, Integrity Provisions, paragraph 7, ID -14,
page 34).
(2) The Integrity Provisions define the term "financial interest" as follows:
(d) "Financial Interest" means:
ownership of more than a 5% interest in any
business; or
(ii) holding a position as an officer, director, trustee,
partner, employee, or the like, or holding any
position of management.
(Standard Subgrant Conditions, Integrity Provisions, paragraph (1)(d),
ID -14, page 33).
By letter dated January 27, 2000, the subgrant was awarded to the SCSD for
the project period 9/15/99 to 6/30/00. (ID -14, pages 36 -37).
Respondent signed the acceptance of the subgrant on behalf of the SCSD.
(See, Findings 179 g(1), 202). (ID -14, page 37).
Respondent signed Subgrant Cumulative Fiscal Reports relating to the
subgrant in the designated capacity as Project Director. (ID -14, pages 39, 43).
(i)
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 131
I. Respondent signed a "Project Modification Request" and "Amendment to
Subgrant Agreement" relating to the subgrant on April 12, 2000, in the
designated capacities of "Project Director" and "Superintendent" respectively.
(ID -14, pages 41 -42).
215. ID -15 consists of true and correct copies of various SCSD records pertaining to the
1999 -2000 Safe Schools Initiative Grant #3 in the amount of $28,153.00 received by
the SCSD. (See, Finding 174 y).
a. There were three account codes used for expenditures of this grant,
specifically, 1490- 112 -203, 1490 - 610 -203, and 1490 - 390 -203. (ID -15, page
2). (See, Finding 174 y(2)).
b. Kings Bridge Incorporated was paid 3 payments from this grant, which
payments were in the amounts of $1,777.16, $7,000.00, and $6,000.00,
totaling $14,777.16. (ID -15, page 2). (See, Finding 174 y(3)).
(1) The $1,777.16 payment to Kings Bridge Incorporated was made as part
of SCSD Check #20705. (ID -15, page 2; ID -9, pages 1 -2). (See,
Finding 174 y(3)).
(2) The $7,000.00 payment to Kings Bridge Incorporated was made by
SCSD Check # 21037. (ID -15, page 2; ID -9, pages 3 -4). (See, Finding
174 y(3)).
The $6,000.00 payment to Kings Bridge Incorporated was made by
SCSD Check #21223. (ID -15, page 2; ID -9, pages 5 -6). (See, Finding
174 y(3)).
c. Respondent signed SCSD Conference Travel Expense Vouchers for various
individuals for expenses incurred relative to PULSE training. (ID -15, pages 9,
13, 15, 17).
d. Respondent completed a report entitled "1999 -2000 Safe and Drug Free
Schools and Communities Act (SDFSCA) Pennsylvania Governor's Program
Final Reporting Form," which was required to be submitted to the Pennsylvania
Commission on Crime and Delinquency regarding the outcome of grant - funded
programs. (ID -15, pages 24 -30).
(1) Respondent's report includes detailed descriptions of the PULSE
Program and its philosophy. (ID -15, pages 25 -26).
(2) Respondent's report includes a "data summary" with focus group
questions and responses and the following statement: "Participants in
the Pulse Leadership Training Program showed improved grades,
reduced discipline incidents, and increased participation in school and
community activities." (ID -15, page 27).
Items 10 and 11 of the report, which are not typed but are completed
with handwritten answers, indicate that Respondent completed the report
and was the individual responsible for the program. (ID -15, page 30).
e. ID -15, pages 31 -32 consist of a memorandum dated May 1, 2000, from
Respondent as Superintendent of SCSD to "All Middle School Pulse
Participants" regarding the PULSE Student Leadership Training Program
conducted May 9, 10, and 11, 2000, in Elizabethtown, PA.
(3)
(3)
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 132
216. ID -16 consists of certified copies of records of the Center for Schools and
Communities /Central Susquehanna Intermediate Unit -16 pertaining to the first round of
funding awarded to the SCSD under the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department
of Education's 1999 -2000 Safe Schools Initiative. (See, Finding 175 c).
a. The SCSD was awarded a $20,000.00 grant for the 1999 -2000 school year.
(ID -16, pages 7 -8).
(1) Respondent signed the Letter of Agreement for the grant. (ID -16, pages
9, 11).
(2) Respondent signed invoices for the grant. (ID -16, pages 10, 12, 15).
b. The Grant Application (ID -16, pages 16 -79) was for the PULSE Program.
(1) The total allocation for contracted services in the Grant Application is
$10,500 with no matching funds. (ID -16, pages 21 -22).
(2) Kings Bridge, Incorporated is listed as the contractor for the PULSE
Program at a cost of $10,500.00. (ID -16, pages 22, 48).
Respondent is identified in the Grant Application as a co- originator of
PULSE, PULSE program management /training staff, the SCSD
Superintendent, and the Project Contact Person with "Program
Oversight" and involvement in student referrals. (ID -16, pages 18, 46-
47).
(4) Respondent is listed on the PULSE Organizational Chart included with
the Grant Application as a member of the PULSE Core Training Staff,
under the heading "Contracts With." (ID -16, page 48).
The Budget Narrative is set forth in pertinent part at Finding 59. (ID -16,
pages 22 -23).
(6) The Grant Application and attachments include detailed descriptions of
the PULSE Program, its philosophy, and activities and strategies used in
the "PULSE Training Model." (ID -16, pages 24 -33, 38 -44).
217. ID -17 consists of certified copies of records of the Center for Schools and
Communities /Central Susquehanna Intermediate Unit -16 pertaining to the 2000 -2001
Safe Schools Initiative Grant awarded to the SCSD under the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania Department of Education's "Safe School Initiative." (See, Finding 175 e).
a. The Grant Application includes the PULSE Program and three other programs.
(ID -17, page 7).
b. The Budget Narrative portion of the Grant Application is set forth in pertinent
part at Finding 80. (ID -17, pages 7 -8).
c. The Grant Application includes a detailed description of the PULSE Program.
(ID -17, pages 15 -18).
d. Respondent signed Letters of Assurance for the Grant Application confirming
the execution of Memoranda of Understanding with law enforcement
authorities. (ID-17, pages 30 -31).
(3)
(5)
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 133
e. Respondent is identified in the Grant Application as the "Program Director."
(ID -17, page 4).
(1) The Application Cover Sheet, which bears a stamp indicating receipt at
the Center for Community and Student Services on July 7, 2000,
appears to have been prepared using the prior year's form. (ID -17, page
4).
f. Respondent is identified in the Grant Application as the person responsible for
accomplishing certain objectives listed under "Outcome No. 2." (ID -17, page
23).
(1) Outcome No. 2 is stated as follows: "To create a proactive
Columbia /Northumberland Co. community in which individuals and
agencies pool resources for PULSE program support and continuation
through a 15% increase of coordination efforts by the conclusion of the
2000 -2001 school year." (ID -17, page 23).
(2) Objective No. 1, for which Respondent is listed as responsible, is stated
as follows: "Develop effective communication systems through the
implementation /maintenance of an Advisory Board representative of the
community at- large." (ID -17, page 23).
Objective No. 2, for which Respondent is listed as responsible, is stated
as follows: "Increase volunteerism through an effective marketing
strategy." (ID -17, page 23).
g. Respondent is identified in an attachment to the Grant Application as a member
of the Southern Columbia Community Advisory Council. (ID -17, page 28).
h. The Budget and Budget Narrative list the total allocation for consultants and
contracts as $27,000.00 of grant funds, with no SCSD matching funds being
used for this category. (ID -17, pages 6 -7).
(1) Kings Bridge, Inc. is listed as a consultant /contractor for the Middle
School PULSE Program at a cost of $10,000.00. (ID -17, pages 7, 17).
(2) James Madison University is listed as a consultant /contractor for "Peer
Mediation" at a cost of $3,000.00. (ID -17, page 7).
j.
(3)
(3)
Northeast Foundation for Children is listed as a consultant/contractorfor
"Responsive Classroom" at a cost of $14,000.00. (ID -17, page 7).
i. The grant that was awarded to the SCSD was in the amount of $22,800.00,
which was $37,200.00 less than the $60,000.00 that had been requested. (ID-
17, pages 4, 42).
Because the grant award was lower than the amount requested by the SCSD in
its Grant Application, the SCSD was required to submit a revised budget and a
revised budget narrative based upon the amount awarded. (ID -17, pages 42-
45).
k. ID -17, pages 51 -52 consist of amendments to the original budget and budget
narrative, which amendments were submitted by the SCSD on October 17,
2000. (See, Finding 175 e(5)).
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 134
(1) The amended budget and budget narrative reflect the $22,800 grant
awarded to the SCSD. (See, Finding 175 e(5)).
(2) Per the amendments, the Peer Mediation and Peer Counseling
programs were eliminated, and only the PULSE program and the
Responsive Classroom programs were to be implemented. (See,
Finding 175 e(5)).
(3)
The amendments reduced to two the number of contractors: Northeast
Foundation for Children for the Responsive Classroom at a cost of
$3,000.00, and Mainstream Counseling Services for the PULSE
program at a cost of $12,000.00. (See, Finding 175 e(5)).
(a) Per the revised Budget Narrative, the allocation for Northeast
Foundation for Children ( "Responsive Classroom ") was cut from
$14,000.00 to $3,000.00, but the allocation for the PULSE
Program was increased from $10,000.00 to $12,000.00. (ID -17,
pages 7, 52).
(4) The revised Budget Narrative lists the consultant /contractor for the
PULSE Program as Mainstream Counseling Services instead of Kings
Bridge, Inc. (ID -17, pages 7, 52).
(a) The revised Budget Narrative does not identify Kings Bridge, Inc.
as a consultant /contractor under the grant. (ID -17, page 52).
ID -17, pages 64 -66 consist of a letter dated February 22, 2001, from
Respondent to Ellen Adler of the Center for Safe Schools, with attachments,
requesting another budget revision for the grant. (See, Finding 175 e(6)).
(1) The stated reasons for the request included increased food costs, a
reduction in adult participants, and an increase in travel costs. (ID -17,
page 64).
(2) The allocation for Mainstream Counseling Services was reduced from
$12,000.00 to $11,000.00, which was still $1,000.00 more than had
been allocated for the PULSE program under the original grant
application. (ID -17, pages 7, 66).
(3)
The allocation for Northeast Foundation for Children was reduced from
$3,000.00 to $2,500.00. (ID -17, page 66).
m. Respondent signed the Letter of Agreement for the grant. (ID -17, pages 46-
47).
218. ID -18 consists of certified copies of records of the Center for Schools and
Communities /Central Susquehanna Intermediate Unit -16 pertaining to the second
round of funding awarded to the SCSD under the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Department of Education's 1999 -2000 Safe Schools Initiative. (See, Finding 175 d).
a. The Grant Application includes the PULSE Program and three other programs.
(ID -18, page 7).
b. The Budget Narrative portion of the Grant Application is set forth in pertinent
part at Finding 69. (ID -18, pages 7 -8).
c. The Grant Application includes a detailed description of the PULSE Program.
(ID -18, pages 13 -15).
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 135
j.
d. Respondent signed a Letter of Assurance and Memoranda of Understanding
with law enforcement authorities for the Grant Application. (ID -18, pages 37,
40 -71).
e. Respondent is identified in the Grant Application as the "Program Director."
(ID -18, page 4).
f. Respondent is identified in the Grant Application as the person responsible for
accomplishing certain objectives listed under "Outcome No. 2." (ID -18, page
19).
(1) Outcome No. 2 is stated as follows: "To create a proactive
Columbia /Northumberland Co. community in which individuals and
agencies pool resources for PULSE program support and continuation
through a 15% increase of coordination efforts by the conclusion of the
1999 -2000 school year." (ID -18, page 19).
(2) Objective No. 1, for which Respondent is listed as responsible, is stated
as follows: "Develop effective communication systems through the
implementation /maintenance of an Advisory Board representative of the
community at- large." (ID -18, page 19).
Objective No. 2, for which Respondent is listed as responsible, is stated
as follows: "Increase volunteerism through an effective marketing
strategy." (ID -18, page 19).
g. Respondent is identified in an attachment to the Grant Application as a member
of the Southern Columbia Community Advisory Council. (ID -18, page 34).
h. The budget and budget narrative list the total allocation for consultants and
contracts as $44,840.00 of grant funds, with no SCSD matching funds being
used for this category. (ID -18, pages 6 -7).
(1) Kings Bridge, Inc. is listed as a consultant /contractor for the PULSE
Program at a cost of $7,840.00. (ID -18, page 7).
(2) James Madison University is listed as a consultant /contractor for Peer
Mediation at a cost of $5,000.00. (ID -18, page 7).
Comprehensive Health Education Foundation is listed as a
consultant /contractor for Violence Prevention at a cost of $2,500.00.
(ID -18, page 7).
(4) Northeast Foundation for Children is listed as a consultant/contractorfor
Responsive Classroom at a cost of $29,500.00. (ID -18, page 7).
i. The grant that was awarded to the SCSD was in the amount of $26,400.00,
which was $48,600.00 less than the $75,000.00 that had been requested. (ID-
18, pages 4, 72).
Because the grant award was lower than the amount requested by the SCSD in
its Grant Application, the SCSD was required to submit a revised budget and a
revised budget narrative based upon the amount awarded. (ID -18, pages 72-
75).
(3)
(3)
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 136
k. ID -18, pages 81 -82 consist of amendments to the original budget, which
amendments were submitted by the SCSD on or about December 21, 1999.
(See, Finding 175 d(7)).
(1) The amended budget form and budget narrative reflect the $26,400
grant awarded to the SCSD. (See, Finding 175 d(7)(a)).
(2) Per the amendments, two programs were eliminated, and only the
PULSE and Responsive Classroom programs were to be implemented.
(See, Finding 175 d(7)(b)).
Per the revised budget, the amount allocated to Consultants and
Contracts was $22,000.00, consisting of $14,000.00 from grant funds
and $8,000.00 from matching funds of the SCSD. (ID -18, pages 81-
82).
(4) The grant portion of the allocation for PULSE training was $7,000.00,
and the grant portion of the allocation for Responsive Classroom
Training was $7,000.00. (ID -18, pages 81 -82).
The revised Budget Narrative did not indicate how the SCSD matching
funds in the amount of $8,000.00 would be allocated. (ID -18, pages 81-
82).
ID -18, pages 76 -79 consist of a letter dated March 23, 2000, from Julia Steele,
Administrative Secretary for the SCSD to Leah Harry of the Center for Safe
Schools, with attachments, submitting another budget revision for the grant.
(See, Finding 175 d(8)).
(1) The stated reason for the request was to have release time for
instructional staff to further their trainin in PULSE and the Responsive
Classroom. (See, Finding 175 d(8)(a)).
(2) Per the revised budget, the amount allocated to Consultants and
Contracts was $19,200.00, consisting of $11,200.00 from grant funds
and $8,000.00 from matching funds of the SCSD. (ID -18, pages 77-
78).
The grant portion of the allocation for PULSE training was $4,200.00,
and the grant portion of the allocation for Responsive Classroom
Training was $7,000.00. (ID -18, pages 77 -78).
(4) The revised Budget Narrative did not indicate how the SCSD matching
funds in the amount of $8,000.00 would be allocated. (ID-18, page 78).
m. Respondent signed the Letter of Agreement for the grant. (ID -18, pages 89-
90).
(3)
(5)
(3)
n. Respondent signed four Monthly Expenditure Reports /invoices for the grant for
the months of March, April, May and June 2000. (ID -18, pages 91, 97, 100,
and 84/99).
o. Part of the total $5,400.00 billed by Kings Bridge, Inc. under invoice number
58022 dated 3/31/00 was paid from this grant. (ID -18, pages 91, 93; ID -20,
pages 1 -3; ID-9, pages 1 -2).
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 137
219. ID -19 consists of true and correct copies of various SCSD records pertaining to the
1999 -2000 Safe Schools Initiative Grant #1 in the amount of $20,000.00 received by
the SCSD. (See, Finding 174 z).
a. There were five account codes used for expenditures of this grant, specifically,
1490- 112- 201 -20, 1490- 390 - 201 -20, 1490- 580 - 201 -20, 1490- 610 -201 -20,
and 1490 - 890 - 201 -20. (See, Finding 174 z(2)).
b. Kings Bridge Incorporated was paid 2 payments from this grant, which
payments were in the amounts of $7,000.00 and $422.84, totaling $7,422.84.
(See, Finding 174 z(3)).
c. Respondent submitted a Conference Travel Expense Voucher claiming mileage
and reimbursement for pizza as to the PULSE training on March 14 -March 16,
2000, at Elizabethtown, PA. (ID -15, page 3; ID -19, page 2). (See, Finding 174
z(4)).
(1) The account codes on the voucher and duplicate check copy indicate
that these expenses were reimbursed to Respondent from this particular
grant (Code 201). (ID -15, page 3; ID -19, page 2). (See, Finding 174
z(4)).
d. ID -19, page 4 consists of a memorandum dated September 27, 1999, from
Respondent as Superintendent of SCSD to "All Pulse Team Members"
regarding the PULSE Training /Preparation Schedule for planning on October
21 -22, 1999, in Bloomsburg; Adult Team experiences /practices on January 11-
13, 2000, in Elizabethtown; and the Student Retreat on March 12 -14, 2000, in
Elizabethtown, PA. (See, Finding 174 z(5)).
220. ID -20 consists of true and correct copies of various SCSD records pertaining to the
1999 -2000 Safe Schools Initiative Grant #2 in the amount of $26,400.00 received by
the SCSD. (See, Finding 174 aa).
a. There were four account codes used for expenditures of this grant, specifically,
1490 - 112 - 202 -20, 1490 - 390 - 202 -10, 1490 - 390 - 202 -20, and 1490- 580 -202-
20. (See, Finding 174 aa(2)).
b. Kings Bridge Incorporated was paid 1 payment from this grant, which payment
was in the amount of $3,200.00. (See, Finding 174 aa(3)).
(1) The $3,200.00 payment to Kings Bridge Incorporated was made as part
of SCSD Check # 20705. (ID -20, pages 1 -3; ID -9, pages 1 -2). (See,
Finding 174 aa(3)).
c. Respondent's signature appears on the Letter of Agreement for this grant. (ID-
20, pages 5 -6). (See, Finding 174 aa(4)).
d. Respondent's signature appears on Monthly Expenditure Reports for this grant.
(ID -20, pages 8, 9, 10 and 11). (See, Finding 174 aa(4)).
221. ID -21 consists of true and correct copies of various SCSD records pertaining to the
2000 -2001 Safe Schools Initiative Grant #4 in the amount of $22,800.00 received by
the SCSD. (See, Finding 174 bb).
a. There were five account codes used for expenditures of this grant, specifically,
1490 - 112 - 204 -20, 1490 - 390 - 204 -20, 1490- 580 - 204 -20, 1490 - 610 -204 -20,
and 1490 - 750 - 204 -20. (See, Finding 174 bb(2)).
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 138
b. Mainstream Counseling, Inc. was paid 1 payment from this grant, which
payment was in the amount of $11,000.00. (See, Finding 174 bb(3)). (7/15/03
Tr. at 250).
(1) The $11,000.00 payment to Mainstream Counseling, Inc. was made by
SCSD Check # 22632. (ID -21, page 1; ID -9, pages 9 -10). (See,
Finding 174 bb(3)).
c. Respondent's signature appears on ID -21, page 3. (See, Finding 174 bb(4)).
d. ID -21, pages 2 -4 document an expense for pizza for PULSE retreat participants
attending the PULSE Leadership Training at Elizabethtown in February 2001,
which expense was submitted by the Respondent for reimbursement.
222. ID -22 consists of certified copies of records of the Pennsylvania Department of
Education pertaining to the Safe and Drug Free Schools grant application submitted by
the SCSD to the Department of Education for the 1999 -2000 school year. (See,
Finding 178 g).
a. For 1999 -2000, the SCSD received a grant in the amount of $6,413.00. (ID-
22, page 5).
b. The Application submitted by the SCSD indicated that some of the grant money
would be used for the PULSE program. (ID -22, pages 28 -29).
c. Pursuant to the requirements of the "Safe and Drug -Free Schools and
Communities Law of 1994," seven members of a "Community Advisory
Council" signed an assurance as to their involvement in the development of the
Application and review of the completed Application. (ID -22, page 30).
(1) Five of the seven members appear to be SCSD employees: an
instructional aide, a clerk, a representative of the "G.C. Hartman
Elementary Center," a representative of the Guidance Department, and
a faculty member. (ID -22, page 30).
d. As the authorized representative for the SCSD, Respondent signed "Rider N" to
the Master Agreement, agreeing to the terms under which the funds would be
provided to the SCSD. (See, Finding 178 g(1)). (ID -22, page 7).
e. The final progress report submitted by the SCSD indicates that the PULSE
Program was implemented under the grant. (ID -22, pages 31 -33).
f. As Superintendent, Respondent signed the Final Expenditure Report for the
grant. (See, Finding 202). (ID -22, page 35).
223. ID-23 consists of true and correct copies of records of the Pennsylvania Department of
Education pertaining to the Safe and Drug Free Schools grant application submitted by
the SCSD to the Department of Education for the 2000 -2001 school year. (See,
Finding 178 h).
a. For 2000 -2001, the SCSD received a grant in the amount of $6,378.00. (ID-
23, page 18).
b. The Application submitted by the SCSD indicated that some of the grant money
would be used for the PULSE program. (ID -23, pages 22 -23).
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 139
c. Pursuant to the requirements of the "Safe and Drug -Free Schools and
Communities Law of 1994," seven members of a "Community Advisory
Council" signed an assurance as to their involvement in the development of the
Application and review of the completed Application. (ID -23, page 24).
(1) As Superintendent, Respondent was one of the seven members who
signed the assurance. (ID -23, page 24).
(2) Three other members appear to be SCSD employees: a clerk, an
instructional aide, and a faculty member. (ID -23, page 24).
d. As the authorized representative for the SCSD, Respondent signed "Rider N" to
the Master Agreement, agreeing to the terms under which the grant funds
would be provided to the SCSD. (See, Findings 178 h, 202). (ID -23, page 6).
e. ID -23, pages 27 -30 consist of the final progress report submitted by the SCSD
for the 2000 -2001 Safe and Drug Free Schools grant. (See, Finding 178 h(4)).
(7/16/03 Tr. at 49).
(1) This report includes indicates that the PULSE program was used by the
SCSD under the grant. (ID -23, pages 27 -29). (See, Finding 178 h(4)).
f. The Final Expenditure Report for the grant was submitted after Respondent
ceased employment with the SCSD and was signed by a different individual.
(ID -23, page 31).
224. ID -24 consists of true and correct copies of records of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania Department of Education pertaining to the Safe and Drug Free Schools
grant application submitted by the SCSD to the Department of Education for the 1998-
1999 school year. (See, Finding 178 f).
a. For 1998 -1999, the SCSD received a grant in the amount of $7,861.00. (ID-
24, page 40).
b. The Application was submitted and "Rider N" to the Master Agreement was
executed on behalf of the SCSD prior to Respondent's employment with the
SCSD. (ID -24, pages 4, 23).
c. Neither the Application nor any other paperwork filed relative to the grant prior to
Respondent's employment with the SCSD made any mention of the PULSE
program. (ID -24).
d. Respondent executed a Rider Amendment, which extended the project ending
date. (See, Finding 178 f(8)). (ID -24, pages 19 -20).
e. A required final progress report submitted by the SCSD after Respondent had
commenced employment with the SCSD (see, Findings 9, 178 f(10)) indicates
that the PULSE Program was implemented under the grant. (ID -24, pages 16-
17).
f. Respondent signed the Final Completion Report for the grant, which was
received at the Safe and Drug Free Schools Office on January 24, 2000. (ID-
24, page 3). (See, Findings 178 f(12)).
225. ID-25 consists of true and correct copies of records of the Pennsylvania Department of
Education pertaining to the Safe and Drug Free Schools grant application submitted by
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 140
the SCSD to the Department of Education for the 2001 -2002 school year. (See,
Finding 178 i).
a. For 2001 -2002, the SCSD received a grant in the amount of $6,179.00. (ID-
25, page 3).
b. Respondent's employment with the SCSD ended on June 30, 2001. (See,
Finding 9).
c. "Rider N" to the Master Agreement was executed on behalf of the SCSD on or
about August 6, 2001, when Respondent was no longer employed by the
SCSD. (ID -25, page 5).
d. None of the paperwork filed relative to the grant made any mention of the
PULSE program. (ID -25).
226. ID-26 consists of true and correct copies of SCSD records pertaining to the 2002 -2004
SCSD 21 S Century Community Learning Center grant.
a. Respondent was identified in the application materials as the contact person
and Project Director for the SCSD's grant. (ID -26, pages 3, 56).
b. Respondent signed the grant application. (ID -26, page 56).
c. Respondent signed Memoranda of Understanding for the grant. (ID -26, pages
1 -2, 41 -48, 91 -98).
d. Respondent signed certifications required for the grant. (ID -26, pages 85 -87).
e. Respondent signed "Assurances" for the grant (ID -26, pages 83 -84), certifying,
inter alia, as follows:
As the duly authorized representative of the applicant, I certify
that the applicant:
3. Will establish safeguards to prohibit employees from using
their positions for a purpose that constitutes or presents the
appearance of personal or organizational conflict of interest, or
personal gain.
ID -26, page 83.
f. The paperwork submitted for the grant indicated that some of the grant money
would be used for the PULSE program. (ID -26, pages 23, 82).
g. The paperwork submitted for the grant indicated that an Executive Committee
including the SCSD Superintendent would be formed to provide leadership for
the CLC Program and Managing for Results process. (ID -26, page 30).
h. Per the SCSD's "CLC Management Plan and Timeline' under the grant, the
SCSD Superintendent was to have full responsibility for transforming three
library /media centers into Community Learning Centers (CLCs); forming the
Executive Committee; designating an Administrative Assistant; reporting
Progress to Townships and Board of Trustees; and forming a Management
Committee, and shared responsibility for hiring Counselor /Coordinators;
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 141
j.
planning for post funding support; and retaining an Evaluation Consultant. (ID-
26, page 76).
i. The SCSD's "Budget Justification" for the grant lists expenditures for the
PULSE program. (ID -26, page 82).
The United State Department of Education's Program Officer for the SCSD
grant was Peter D. Eldridge ( "Eldridge "). (ID -26, page 50).
k. By letter dated February 28, 2001, Respondent corresponded with Eldridge
regarding corrections to information submitted by the SCSD. (ID -26, pages 51-
54 )
I. A letter dated March 5, 2001, from Eldridge to Respondent references a
meting between Eldridge and Respondent regarding the implementation of the
21 S Century Community Learning Centers Program in the SCSD. (ID -26, page
50).
m. The SCSD was awarded a grant under the 21 st Century Community Learning
Center grant program. (ID -26, pages 4 -5).
(1) The Grant Award Notification is dated June 12, 2001. (ID -26, page 5).
(2) The grant was to take effect on June 1, 2001. (ID -26, page 50).
(3) A term /condition of the grant award was that the SCSD's Project
Director be changed to Roy Clippinger. (ID -26, pages 4 -5).
227. ID -27 consists of true and correct copies of records of Mainstream Counseling, Inc.,
which records include invoices generated by Mainstream Counseling to school districts
and Kings Bridge Incorporated invoices generated to Mainstream Counseling under
the terms of the December 1, 1999, contract between Kings Bridge Incorporated and
Mainstream Counseling. (See, Finding 177 n).
a. ID -27, pages 35 -40 pertain to the single billing of the SCSD by Mainstream
Counseling, Inc. (See, Finding 177 n).
(1) During the period from December 1999 through December 2000, the
billing arrangement between Kings Bridge Incorporated orated and Mainstream
Counseling was repeatedly used for PULSE for the West
Greene School District but not for the SCSD, even as to consolidated
training session(s) involving both school districts. (ID -27, pages 1 -30).
(See, Finding 177 n(3)).
228. ID -28 consists of certified copies of records of the Montgomery County Intermediate
Unit pertaining to the first Superintendents' Technology Leadership conference, which
was held July 24 -27, 2000. (See, Finding 187 d).
a. Respondent attended this particular Superintendents' Technology Leadership
conference. (ID -28, page 8).
b. ID -28, pages 9 -10 consist of the service purchase contract (with attached
budget summary) between the Pennsylvania Department of Education and the
Montgomery County Intermediate Unit by which the latter agreed to host the
Pennsylvania Superintendents' Technology Leadership Academy. (See,
Finding 187 d(2)).
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 142
c. ID-28, pages 11 -15 consist of a printout of all of the expenditures for the 2000
Superintendents' Technology Leadership Academy.
(1) There are three entries dated July 14, 2000 - -in the amounts of
$2,905.00, $3,010.00, and $218,309.00- -for purchases of equipment
from the vendor "PC Connection Inc." (ID -28, page 11). (See, Finding
188 b).
229. ID -29 consists of true and correct copies of SCSD records.
a. ID -29, pages 2 -4 consist of SCSD records pertaining to Respondent's
attendance at the Superintendents' Technology Leadership Academy at the
Hershey Convention Center on July 24 -27, 2000. (See, Finding 174 dd).
(1) ID -29, page 2 is a check duplicate copy of SCSD check #21836 dated
September 11, 2000, in the amount of $200.00, by which Respondent's
registration fee for the academy was paid by the SCSD. (See, Finding
174 dd(1)).
(2) ID -29, pages 3 -4 are copies of a purchase order and Invoice #LW1868
from the Montgomery County Intermediate Unit to the SCSD for
Respondent's registration fee for the academy. (See, Finding 174
dd(1)).
b. ID -29, page 6 is a letter dated April 24, 2002, from Respondent to Springer,
signed by Respondent, regarding the return to the SCSD of a laptop computer
Respondent had received at the Superintendents' Technology Leadership
Academy. (See, Finding 174 dd(2)).
(1) The letter is on letterhead of the School District of Upper Dublin.
(2) The letter states:
Dear Joe:
On Tuesday, April 23, 2002, I spoke with Dr. Dennis Harken,
Executive Director, Montgomery County I.U. #23, in reference to
the laptop computer I had received after attending the
Technology Leadership Academy training for Superintendents.
At that time, it was my understanding the laptop computer I was
issued was to remain with me in my job function as a
Superintendent for as long as I was employed in the
Commonwealth. However, following my conversation with Dr.
Harken, and in an effort to preclude any further questions about
where the computer should reside, I am returning it to your care.
The identification for this laptop is as follows:
Sincerely
• IBM ThinkPad T20
• Type 2647
• 2647 -640 S/N 78 -Z331 06/00
If any [sic] you need any additional information please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 143
[signature]
Dr. Steve Wilcox
Superintendent
c. ID -29, pages 10 and 11 are copies of Invoice #111123 dated November 18,
1998, from West Greene School District to SCSD in the amount of $1000.00
for "Training for 10 teachers at PULSE retreat November 11, 12, 13, 1998."
(See, Finding 174 dd(3)).
(1) This Invoice is addressed to the SCSD in care of Respondent.
d. ID -29, pages 8 and 9 are copies of the SCSD check and duplicate check copy,
# 18017 in the amount of $1,000.00 payable to West Greene School District in
payment of the invoice referenced in the Finding immediately above. (See,
Finding 174 ee).
e. ID-29, pages 12 and 13 are copies of an accounting ledger for the 1998 -1999
Drug Free Schools Grant received by the SCSD.
230. ID -30 consists of certified copies of records of the Camp Hill School District pertaining
to Respondent. (See, Finding 189 a).
a. The records of the Camp Hill School District include only one Statement of
Financial Interests filed by Respondent, which is at ID -30, page 17. (See,
Finding 189 a(1)).
(1) The filing was on form SEC -1 REV. 1/97.
(2) At the bottom of the form is the signature of Respondent's name as the
filer and an illegible date in 1997.
b. This Statement of Financial Interests was later supplemented by a letter from
Respondent received at the Camp Hill School District on July 13, 2001. (ID -30,
page 16).
(1) The letter dated July 10, 2001, was directed "to whom it may concern,"
and stated as follows:
This letter is being written to explain and supplement my
Statement of Financial Interest under the Pennsylvania Public
Official and Employee Ethics Act for year 1996.
It has come to my attention that I may have made a
technical error on entering information for item number 14. Said
item require [sic] disclosure of business relationships including
corporate directorships. My response was "none." However, I
understand that I was listed as a director of Kingsbridge Inc. on
records in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
It is my understanding that an Annual report form
originates at the Virginia State Corporation Commission and is
composed with names of officers and directors already entered —
apparently based on prior years reports. The corporate secretary
received, signed, and returned the forms. Until recently, I never
saw any such reports and never participated in their return or
filing. The form, together with the registration fee, is required
annually and has been submitted by others without my consent.
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 144
To the best of my knowledge, the corporation does not
hold meetings of either stockholders or directors. I have not
received notice of such nor have I attended any meetings of such
nature for years. I did not and do not participate in any aspect of
corporate operations or business policy - making. I did not and do
not perform any duties as an officer or director.
My association with Kingsbridge Inc. has been strictly to
benefit students. I own no stock or equity or other financial
interest in Kingsbridge Inc. and have received no bonuses for
promotions of the business. I have no contractual or other
expectations of pecuniary gain for being associated with the
organization. My relationship with Kingsbridge Inc. is strictly in
the areas of research and training. When performing services I
have receive [sic] payment for work actually performed and
reimbursement for out -of pocket expenses related to supporting
the Student Leadership Programs. I performed no services
through Kingsbridge Inc. for Camp Hill School District.
Sincerely
[signature]
Steve Wilcox, Ed.D.
c. ID -30, pages 13 -15 consist of W -2 forms issued to Respondent by the Camp
Hill School District for 1996, 1997 and 1998.
d. ID -30, pages 2 -3 consist of official records of leave accrual and usage for
Respondent as of June 30, 1997, and as of June 30, 1998. (See, Finding 189
e).
e. ID -30, page 4 consists of a notice to Respondent from the Office of the
Superintendent reflecting Respondent's leave as of the beginning of the 1997-
98 school year. See, Finding 189 f).
f. ID -30, pages 5 -12 consist of absentee record forms used by Respondent to
report leave to the Superintendent of the Camp Hill School District. See,
Findings 189 g, 190 g(2)).
(1) The absentee record forms have spaces for indicating vacation, illness,
personal leave, comp time, professional leave, and funeral leave.
(2) The only types of recorded leave taken by Respondent were illness,
personal, and vacation leave.
The official records of the Camp Hill School District do not include any
leave slip from Respondent reporting comp time leave for November 7,
1997.
g.
(3)
ID -30, pages 24 -30 consist of detailed telephone records for Respondent's
telephone line at the Camp Hill School District, number (717) 901 -2413. (See,
Finding 189 j).
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 145
(1) The records are for calls placed from August 29, 1997, through
December 23, 1997; January 13, 1998, through February 10, 1998; and
March 2, 1998, through May 8, 1998.
(2) On February 9, 1998, a telephone call was placed on Respondent's
dedicated telephone line at the Camp Hill School District to
Chambersburg, PA, to telephone number (717) 267 -6320 at 10:27 a.m.
(ID -30, page 29).
231. ID -31 consists of true and correct copies of SCSD leave records for the Respondent.
(See, Finding 174 oo).
a. ID -31, page 1 is a summary of leave allocation and usage by Respondent for
the 1998 -1999 school year. (See, Finding 174 00(1)).
b. ID -31, pages 2 -16 are absence request forms signed and submitted by
Respondent. (See, Finding 174 00(2)).
(1) The absence request forms have spaces for indicating personal leave,
emergency leave, illness, conference, vacation leave, comp time, and
"other."
c. ID -31, pages 17 -19 consist of the summary of employee absences for
Respondent for the 2000 -2001 school year. (See, Finding 174 oo(3)).
232. ID -32, pages 8 -17 are documents submitted by Respondent's Counsel under
verification of Respondent in response to a subpoena request for "Supporting
documentation, including paid bills, invoices, vouchers, receipted bills, inventory
records and credit card bills, etc. related to employment by and /or contracts with Kings
Bridge and /or Mainstream Counseling." (ID -32, pages 1, 5). (7/17/03 Tr. at 120 -123).
a. These documents are described in Respondent's response as "Deponent's
handwritten time and service records from the years 1997, 1998, 1999 and
2000 — 10 attached sheets." (ID -32, page 5). (7/17/03 Tr. at 122 -123).
b. The total claimed by Respondent for services rendered through May 1997 was
$700.00. (ID -32, page 9).
c. The total claimed by Respondent for services rendered from July through
December 1997 was $2400.00. (ID -32, page 8).
d. The total claimed by Respondent for services rendered from January through
May 1998 was $3600.00. (ID -32, pages 10 -11).
e. The total claimed by Respondent for services rendered from July through
December 1998 was $2300.00. (ID -32, page 12).
f. The total claimed by Respondent for services rendered from January through
June 1999 was $2800.00. (ID -32, pages 13 -14).
The total claimed by Respondent for services rendered from July through
December 1999 was $1300.00. (ID -32, page 15).
g.
(2) The only types of recorded leave taken by Respondent were personal
leave, illness, staff /conference, and vacation leave.
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 146
h. The total claimed by Respondent for services rendered from January through
June 2000 was $1700.00. (ID -32, page 16).
The total claimed by Respondent for services rendered from July through
December 2000 was $1300.00. (ID -32, page 17).
The total claimed by Respondent for all services rendered through December
2000 was $16,100.00.
233. ID -34 consists of true and correct copies of minutes of various meetings of the SCSD
School Board. (See, Findings 30, 174). (7/15/03 Tr. at 256).
a. The minutes of the November 9, 1998, meeting of the SCSD School Board
indicate that Respondent was present at the meeting and include the following:
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
Supervisor of Special Education — Jim Breslin reported on
PULSE training at Camp Harmony and informed the board he is
in the process of applying for a grant to support this program.
(ID -34, page 2).
b. None of the SCSD minutes in evidence indicate any disclosure by the
Respondent regarding his involvement with Kings Bridge Incorporated or his
receipt of compensation from Kings Bridge Incorporated.
234. ID -35 is a true and correct copy of a contract dated December 1, 1999, between
Mainstream Counseling and Kings Bridge Incorporated. (See, Finding 177 k).
a. The contract refers to Mainstream Counseling as "Agency" and Kings Bridge
Incorporated as "Consultant." (ID -35, page 1).
b. The contractual obligations of the parties are set forth as follows:
1. Consultant agrees to provide consulting services to
Agency of the type and in amount as set for [sic] on
Exhibit "A," attached hereto and made a part hereof.
2. Compensation will be provided to the Consultant for
consulting services as more fully set forth on Exhibit "B,"
attached hereto and made a part hereof.
3. Consultant will comply with all applicable statutes,
ordinances, and regulations including those prescribed by
the Pennsylvania Department of Health for the state of
Pennsylvania and the Department of Public Welfare. In
addition, Consultant shall comply with all professional
codes and regulations, and shall conduct himself at all
times in a manner commensurate with conduct expected
of persons practicing his profession.
4. Supervision and control of the performance of the
consultant services shall be under the direct control of the
Consultant. The time, manner, and amount of said
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 147
[signatures]
[signatures]
services shall be under the control of the Agency, and
Agency shall provide a suitable work environment for the
performance of such consulting services as needed
EXHIBIT A
CONSULTING SERVICES
PART A
Consultant company agrees to provide program development,
specifically related to prevention intervention program, as
necessary.
PART B
The Consultant agrees to plan, organize, and conduct Trainer of Trainer
Adult PULSE seminars.
The Consultant agrees to provide organization and execution of the
facilitation of PULSE student Retreats.
EXHIBIT B
PART A
The Consultant will be reimbursed according to individual services
provided. Due to the varied fees and services involved, no pre-
determined standard of reimbursement will be designated.
The Consultant shall receive reimbursement after they have submitted a
detailed invoice for the specific services to Mainstream Counseling, but
not before Mainstream Counseling has received reimbursement for the
services from their payor source.
[signatures]
235. ID -36 consists of certified copies of corporate records from the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania Department of State pertaining to Tri- Chamber Foundation, Inc.
a. Tri- Chamber Foundation, Inc. was incorporated as a nonprofit corporation. (ID-
36, page 1).
b. Respondent was an incorporator of this corporation. (ID -36, pages 1 -2).
236. ID -37 through ID -49 and ID -51 are demonstrative charts of the Investigative Division
compiling information from other exhibits of record.
a. Further Findings regarding these demonstrative charts are at Finding 191.
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 148
237. ID -50 consists of two policies adopted by the SCSD School Board on March 8, 1999.
(See, Finding 173 aa).
a. Policy #319 entitled "Outside Activities" provides, in part, as follows:
. The Board recognizes that members of the administrative
staff must enjoy private lives and may associate with others
outside of school for political, economic, religious, cultural or
personal reasons. The Board, however, has a responsibility to
evaluate administrators in terms of their faithfulness to, and
effectiveness in, discharging school duties and responsibilities.
Therefore, when nonschool activities impinge upon an
administrator's effectiveness within the school system, the Board
reserves the right to evaluate the impact of such activities upon
his /her responsibilities to the students and to the district's
programs.
The Board directs the Superintendent to promulgate
guidelines so that administrators may avoid situations in which
their personal interests, activities, and associations may conflict
with the interests of the district.
... The following guidelines are provided for the direction of
administrators:
1. Do not utilize school material for personal gain.
Copyrights to materials or equipment developed,
processed, or tested by district employees in the
performance of district activities in fulfillment of the terms
of their employment, reside with and may be claimed by
the district.
2. Do not use school property or school time to solicit or
accept customers for private enterprises... .
4. Do not use school time for outside activities.
b. Policy #710 entitled "Use of Facilities by Staff' provides as follows:
. School equipment and facilities may not be used by district
staff for personal reasons, either on or off school property,
without explicit authorization or administrative permission in
accordance with these guidelines.
. The facilities and equipment of the district are only available
for staff use if such use is clearly within the authorization granted
in a policy of the Board.
The Board specifically prohibits, except as authorized in the
foregoing paragraph, personal use of district telephones,
materials, tools, supplies, equipment or district vehicles.
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 149
238. ID -52 is a letter from Rembold to Thacker dated February 17, 1993, which has been
purported to be a letter by which Rembold resigned from being an officer, stockholder
and director of Kings Bridge Incorporated. (See, Finding 198 d).
239. ID-55 is a letter dated June 2, 2001, which Thacker testified that he received from the
Respondent. (See, Finding 198 p).
a. The letter states, in substantive part:
ID -55.
Dear Mr. Thacker:
I am writing this letter to formally request payment for my
consulting work related to the PLUS 3 Program. As agreed upon
payment will occur in two billings at:
(1) $6,000 for research and curriculum writing conducted
during April and May of 2001, and
(2) $5,500 for further research, curriculum writing, and
presentations during June of 2001.
b. The copy of the letter that is in evidence bears a faxed transmission date of
April 16, 2002.
240. ID -60 is a letter dated June 12, 2001, from Richard J. Roberts, Jr., SCSD Solicitor, to
Peter D. Eldridge, Program Officer, 21st Century Community Learning Center
Program, United States Department of Education, quoted in pertinent part at Finding
105.
241. ID-61 consists of the application that Respondent submitted for his current position as
superintendent of the Upper Dublin School District. (See, Finding 200 ee).
a. In the application, Respondent stated: "I have been instrumental in
successfully implementing Pulse and Communities that Care at Southern
Columbia." (ID -61, pages 16 -17).
b. In the application, Respondent stated: "While at Southern Columbia, I have
been responsible for writing and coordinating grants that exceed 1.5 million
dollars for the school district ...." (ID -61, page 17).
242. R -1 is an accurate description of what the SCSD School Board was looking for when
filling the position of superintendent in 1998. (See, Finding 173 a(1)).
a. One of the items listed under the heading "Changes Groups Would Make in the
District" pertained to expanding program offerings, including more drug and
alcohol awareness and counseling programs at the high school.
243. R -2 is the packet that Respondent testified he submitted to the SCSD when applying
for the position of SCSD superintendent. (See, Finding 200 I).
a. The first 10 pages of R -2, consisting of a resume with references, include the
following as to the PULSE program:
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 150
CONSULTANCES
Staff and Student Pulse Training for High Risk Youth Behaviors,
Huntingdon, PA (1995).
Training of Trainers for Pulse Program for High Risk Middle
School Youth Behaviors, Lancaster, PA (1994).
PRESENTATIONS
People Using Leadership Skills Effectively. Pennsylvania Department
of Health and the Bureau of Drug and Alcohol Programs Fall Training
Institute, Mountain Laurel, PA (1997).
SPECIAL RECOGNITION
Member of PULSE Program Team nominated as a National Model
Program for Substance Abuse Intervention and Prevention submitted by
the Pennsylvania Bureau of Drug and Alcohol Programs (1997).
(R -2 at 4, 5, 8).
b. The section of the resume labeled "Professional Associations" makes no
mention of the PULSE program. (R -2 at 9).
c. The rest of R -2 includes recommendations, transcripts, clearances, fingerprints
and the like, and does not mention the PULSE program.
d A letter of recommendation from Rembold is included in R -2 and includes the
only reference in R -2 to Kings Bridge Incorporated, which states as follows:
I have also worked with Steve as a business professional by
establishing two corporations, Organizational Harmony, Inc., now
known as Kings Bridge Inc., and Pulsar, Inc. Both of these
businesses were created as "people" organizations.
(R -2 at 14).
244. Exhibit R -3, page 1 includes a letter authored by Porter, which was printed in the
August 13, 2000, edition of the Press Enterprise newspaper, and which set forth
Porter's view of events at the July 17, 2000, public meeting of the Board.
245. Exhibit R -4 is a letter dated May 19, 2000, from John Bailey, Director, Pennsylvania
Office of Educational Technology, and Holly M. Jobe, IMS Director, Montgomery
County Intermediate Unit to Pennsylvania superintendents, which letter served as the
first announcement issued to Pennsylvania superintendents regarding the first
Superintendents' Technology Leadership Academy. (See, Finding, 185 f).
a. The announcement states in part:
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 151
A nominal fee of $200 will be charged ... and will include a
single room and meals at the Hershey Convention Center, as
well as a laptop of your choice that you may keep after the
academy (see registration brochure).
246. Exhibit R -5 is a letter dated April 21, 2003, from L. Michael Golden, Director,
Pennsylvania Office of Educational Technology, and Holly M. Jobe, IMS Director,
Montgomery County Intermediate Unit to Respondent, which letter is a sample of the
current announcement issued to invite prospective attendees to the Superintendents'
Technology Leadership Academy. (See, Finding 203).
a. The announcement states in part:
A nominal fee of $290 will be charged for the Academy, which includes
a PC laptop... .
... Each participant will be provided a PC laptop computer which will
remain the property of your institution. .. .
247. Thacker testified that R -6 consists of the bylaws of Kings Bridge Incorporated.
(See, Finding, 198 a).
a. Article III of the bylaws provides, in part:
ARTICLE III — BOARD OF DIRECTORS
2. NUMBER, TENURE AND QUALIFICATIONS.
The number of directors of the corporation shall be two.
Each director shall hold office until the next annual meeting of
stockholders and until his successor shall have been elected and
qualified.
6. QUORUM.
At any meeting of the directors three shall constitute a
quorum for the transaction of business, but if less than said
number is present at a meeting, a majority of the directors
present may adjourn the meeting from time to time without further
notice.
8. NEWLY CREATED DIRECTORSHIPS AND
VACANCIES.
Newly created directorships resulting from an increase in
the number of directors and vacancies occurring in the board for
any reason except the removal of directors without cause may be
filled by a vote of a majority of the directors then in office,
although less than a quorum exists. .. .
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 152
10. RESIGNATION.
A director may resign at any time by giving written notice
to the board, the president or the secretary of the corporation.
Unless otherwise specified in the notice, the resignation shall
take effect upon receipt thereof by the board or such officer, and
the acceptance of the resignation shall not be necessary to make
it effective.
Bylaws of Kings Bridge Inc., Article III, paragraphs 2, 6, 8, and 10.
b. Article V of the bylaws provides, in part:
ARTICLE V — CONTRACTS, LOANS,
CHECKS AND DEPOSITS
3. CHECKS, DRAFTS, ETC.
All checks, drafts or other orders for the payment
of money, notes or other evidences of indebtedness
issued in the name of the corporation, shall be signed by
such officer or officers, agent or agents of the corporation
and in such manner as shall from time to time be
determined by resolution of the directors.
Bylaws of Kings Bridge Inc., Article V, paragraph 3.
248. R -8 is a letter bearing a date of April 16, 2001 addressed to Thacker from
Respondent, which states:
Dear Mr. Thacker:
I am writing this letter as a follow -up to several attempts to
reach you by telephone. I want to reaffirm my removal from
serving as a member of the Kingsbridge [sic] Board of Directors.
It was my understanding that I had been removed in the fall of
1998 from that role. Would you please call me and /or respond in
writing in that a member of the Southern Columbia Area School
Board has raised a question about my relationship to the
consulting services provided for the Pulse Program. Although, I
believe that the issue continues to be a personal attack toward
me as well as challenging the need for peer support programs.
In addition, I would like to remain as a trainer with the
group on a limited bases [sic]. Further, I would like to continue
the option of offering my district an opportunity to reduce
payment by trading in -kind services as I have been doing while at
Southern or in the future with any other district. In addition, I am
very committed to the youth leadership project as you know and I
would like to continue to contribute time to the research aspect of
the project. As I have been doing previously, I would ask only for
reimbursement of expenses related to the research. If you have
any questions, pleased [sic] contact me by phone at
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 153
570.356.2331. Thank you for you [sic] assistance with this
matter.
Sincerely,
[signature]
Steve Wilcox, Ed.D.
a. The copy of the letter that is in evidence bears a faxed transmission date
of April 16, 2002.
249. Respondent testified that R -11 consists of slides from the PowerPoint presentation that
he presented to the SCSD School Board on April 18, 1998, as part of the interview
process for the position of SCSD superintendent. (See, Finding 200 n).
a. R -11 references support programs but does not specifically reference
the PULSE Program or Kings Bridge Incorporated. (See, Finding 200
n(1)).
250. R -17 is a letter dated June 15, 2001, from Peter D. Eldridge, Program Officer, 21st
Century Community Learning Center Program, United States Department of
Education, to Richard Roberts, Jr., SCSD Solicitor, which letter provides in part:
This is in response to your correspondence of June 12, 2001 requesting
clarification of an apparent conflict of interest between Superintendent
Steve Wilcox and Knightsbridge [sic] Incorporated proprietary holders for
the PULSE Model. In reviewing the facts with Superintendent Wilcox I
learned that he used his role as a Pulse Program Facilitator to obtain
additional programmatic services for the Southern Columbia Area
School District, without charge to the District. We at the 21 Century
Community Learning Centers program encourage our grantees to draw
upon their knowledge, skills and experience to help leverage program
and community capital in order to enhance service delivery to students
and their families. Therefore, I see no apparent conflict of interest for
monetary or personal gain as has been alleged by certain members of
the Southern Columbia Area School Board.
It should be noted that Dr. Wilcox's name has ready [sic] been removed
from the grant award notification and a revised document sent to Mr.
Roy Clippinger by both facsimile and regular surface mail.
(R -17).
III. DISCUSSION:
Respondent Michael Steven Wilcox (also referred to herein as "Respondent" or
"Wilcox ") has at all times relevant to these proceedings been a public official /public employee
subject to the provisions of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Law, Act 9 of 1989,
Pamphlet Law 26, 65 P.S. § 401, et seq., as codified by the Public Official and Employee
Ethics Act, Act 93 of 1998, Chapter 11, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq., which Acts are referred to
herein as the "Ethics Act."
The allegations are that Respondent, a public official /public employee in his capacity as
Superintendent of the Southern Columbia School District, and as Director of Educational
Services for the Camp Hill School District, violated Sections 3(a)/1103(a), 3(f)/1103(f),
4(a)/1104(a), 5(a)/1105(a), 5(b)(5)/1105(b)(5) and 5(b)(8)/1105(b)($8) of the Ethics Act:
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 154
(1) when he used the authority of his office for a private pecuniary gain, including
but not limited to participating in actions of the Southern Columbia School
District to award a contract to provide services for "at risk" students of the
school district to King's Bridge, Inc., a company with which he is associated
and /or serves as an officer and /or employee;
(2) when contracts were awarded to King's Bridge, Inc. by the Southern Columbia
School District, without an open and public process;
(3) when he was compensated by the Southern Columbia School District while
simultaneously being paid to perform services by Kings Bridge, Inc.;
(4) when he retained a laptop computer for his personal use which was property of
the Southern Columbia School District;
(5) when he failed to disclose on Statements of Financial Interests filed for the
2000 calendar year income in excess of $1,300 received from Kings Bridge,
Inc.;
(6) when he failed to disclose his office, directorship or employment in Kings Bridge
Inc., a business entity on Statements of Financial Interests filed for the 1998,
1999 and 2000 calendar years with the Camp Hill School District;
(7) when as Director of Educational Services for the Camp Hill School District, he
failed to disclose on Statements of Financial Interests for the 1999, 2000 and
2001 calendar years office, directorship or employment in Tri- Chamber
Foundation, an entity where he serves as secretary;
(8) when he failed to disclose Cabell County School District as a source of income
in excess of $1,300 on Statements of Financial Interests filed for the 1999 and
2000 calendar years;
(9) when he failed to file a Statement of Financial Interests for the 1997 calendar
year while serving as Director of Education Services for the Camp Hill School
District; and
(10) when he utilized Southern Columbia School District and Camp Hill School
District equipment, facilities, personnel, materials and time for his private
business interests, including but not limited to Kings Bridge, Inc.
Pursuant to Section 3(a)/1103a) of the Ethics Act quoted above, a public official /public
em loyee is prohibited from engaging in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest. Section
3(a /1103(a) of the Ethics Act prohibits a public official /public employee from using the
aut ority of public office /employment or confidential information received by holding such a
public position for the private pecuniary benefit of the public official /public employee himself,
any member of his immediate family, or a business with which he or a member of his
immediate family is associated.
Section 3(f)/1103(f) of the Ethics Act provides in part that no public official /public
employee or spouse or child or business with which he or the spouse or child is associated
may enter into a contract with his governmental body valued at five hundred dollars or more or
any subcontract valued at five hundred dollars or more with any person who has been
awarded a contract with the governmental body with which the public official /public employee
is associated unless the contract is awarded through an open and public process including
prior public notice and subsequent public disclosure.
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 155
Section 4(a)/1104(a) of the Ethics Act quoted above provides that each public
official /public employee must file a Statement of Financial Interests for the preceding calendar
year, each year that he holds the position and the year after he leaves it.
Section 5(a)/1105(a) of the Ethics Act provides that the Statement of Financial
Interests shall be filed on the form prescribed by this Commission; that all information
requested on the form shall be provided to the best of the knowledge, information and belief of
the filer; and that the form shall be signed under oath or equivalent affirmation.
Section 5(b)(5)/1105(b)(5) of the Ethics Act requires the filer to list the name and
address of any direct or indirect source of income totaling in the aggregate of $1,300 or more.
Section 5(b)(8)/1105(b)(8) of the Ethics Act requires the filer to disclose on the
Statement of Financial Interests any office, directorship or employment in any business entity.
Having noted the issues and applicable law, we shall now summarize the relevant facts.
We initially note that Respondent is not credible, and that Respondent's key witness,
Rile Edgar Thacker ( "Thacker "), is not credible. The facts supporting our conclusions as to
lack of credibility are detailed at Finding 201 as to Respondent and Finding 198 as to Thacker.
These Findings highlight contradictions, inconsistencies, twists and turns, and prevarications
throughout Respondent's side of the case.
This case involves numerous alleged violations of the Ethics Act by the Respondent
during his tenure at the Camp Hill School District and the Southern Columbia School District
( "SCSD "). Of these alleged violations, the most significant pertain to Respondent's
involvement with a program known as the "PULSE" Program and the corporation that owned
the copyright to that program, Kings Bridge Incorporated (also referred to herein as "Kings
Bridge' and "Kings Bridge Inc. "). In order to fully understand the facts of this case as they
pertain to the PULSE Program and Kings Bridge Incorporated, one must understand the
genesis of the program and the corporation.
In the years preceding the time period under review in this case, Respondent was
employed as an administrator in the Fairfax County, Virginia, school system where he became
acquainted with two other school administrators, Thacker and Charles P. Rembold
( "Rembold ").
Thacker and Rembold incorporated Kings Bridge in 1983. Thacker and Rembold were
initially the only directors of Kings Bridge. One of the issues to be decided in this case is
whether Respondent at some point in time became a director of Kings Bridge.
In the early 1980's, Respondent, Thacker and Rembold developed the PULSE
( "People Utilizing Leadership Skills Effectively ") concept. Eventually, the program was
copyrighted with Kings Bridge Incorporated owning the copyright.
Respondent, Thacker and Rembold were also involved in a youth program in Virginia
known as "PULSAR." The PULSAR program was administered by a non - profit corporation
named "PULSAR Incorporated." The original bylaws of PULSAR Incorporated provided that
the board of directors would include a representative of Kings Bridge. Rembold was an
incorporator of PULSAR Incorporated, and Thacker was a director of the corporation.
Respondent attended the board meetings of PULSAR Incorporated but was not a director.
Witness Walter Eugene Brown ( "Brown "), a former officer of the Staunton, Virginia
Police Department, was involved with PULSAR Incorporated. Brown testified that Respondent
was present during conversations in which it was indicated that Respondent was involved with
Kings Bridge. Additionally, Brown testified about conversations that he had with Respondent
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 156
that would suggest Respondent was a principal in Kings Bridge. Specifically, Brown testified
that Respondent told him that the material used by PULSAR Incorporated was the intellectual
property of the individuals who ran Kings Bridge. Brown testified that Respondent also
proposed to him a "pass through" arrangement whereby PULSAR Incorporated would keep
only 10% of the monies it received and would pass through the other 90% to Kings Bridge.
Respondent acknowledged discussing an intellectual copyright issue with Brown but claimed
that Brown's testimony regarding the pass- through proposal was a fabrication.
In 1994, the board of PULSAR Incorporated was factionalized. Thacker resigned from
the board, and the board amended its bylaws so that Kings Bridge no longer had a
representative on the board.
Subsequently, Respondent, Rembold, and one of Rembold's subordinates from the
Virginia school system, Arthur Waleski, all obtained administrative positions with school
districts in Pennsylvania. Rembold became superintendent of the West Greene School
District. Waleski became the assistant principal of the Huntingdon Area School District.
Respondent initially worked in the Camp Hill School District as the Director of Educational
Services from August 5, 1996, until August 7, 1998. Respondent served as the
superintendent of the SCSD from July 14, 1998, until June 30, 2001.
During the years that Respondent worked at the Camp Hill School District, Kings
Bridge Incorporated was a dormant corporation. Respondent did some outside consulting
work for which he was paid directly by the contracting school district.
In March 1998 Respondent submitted an application for the position of SCSD
superintendent. One of the identified needs of SCSD at that time was increased student
services. When Respondent applied for the position of SCSD superintendent, his resume
indicated past involvement with the PULSE Program. When Respondent interviewed for the
position, he spoke about student support programs.
Respondent claims that during an interview presentation to the SCSD School Board on
April 18, 1998, he specifically mentioned that he had been a paid trainer for Kings Bridge
Incorporated. However, Respondent's own witness, Louis Clippinger, participated in the
interviews and testified that Respondent made it known during the interview process that he
had some prior involvement with PULSE but did not disclose whether he was affiliated with or
was receiving compensation from Kings Bridge Incorporated. Six of the SCSD School Board
members who were involved in hiring Respondent as SCSD superintendent testified in these
proceedings, half of whom were Respondent's own witnesses, and none of them testified that
Respondent disclosed during his interview for the position that he was a paid trainer for Kings
Bridge Incorporated. Furthermore, it is an undisputed fact that at the time of his interview in
1998, Respondent had never received any payment whatsoever from Kings Bridge
Incorporated.
Respondent was offered the position as SCSD superintendent, and he entered into an
employment contract with the SCSD, which contract is at ID -5. (See, Findings 11, 205). The
contract included the following provision:
3. The Superintendent agrees to devote his full time, attention,
energies, skills and labor to his employment as Superintendent of the District
during the term of this Agreement. However, he may undertake consultative
work, speaking engagements, writing, lecturing or other professional duties and
obligations provided the Board is informed prior thereto and does not direct him
not to engage in such activities.
Contract for Employment of District Superintendent, Section D, paragraph 3 (ID -5, page 3).
Respondent testified that his understanding of this provision was that he would be permitted to
continue to work with Kings Bridge Incorporated on the work that was already in progress, but
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 157
that if he was to get into any new direction, he would have to go through a formal process to
get the approval of the SCSD School Board.
SCSD School Director Porter testified that the above provision permitted Respondent
to undertake outside work provided that Respondent first obtained permission from the SCSD
School Board. Porter testified that Respondent never requested such permission and
specifically never requested permission to do outside compensated consulting work for Kings
Bridge Incorporated. Respondent has asserted that Porter's credibility was impeached at the
hearing. (Respondent's Post - Hearinq Brief, at 9, 91 -93). We disagree. At most, it was
established that Respondent and Porter did not see eye -to -eye. There is no basis in the
record for concluding that Porter was not a credible witness.
Prior to Respondent's employment with the SCSD, the SCSD had never implemented
a PULSE Program. After Respondent became SCSD superintendent, the SCSD not only
implemented a PULSE program but it did so using government grant funds. According to the
credible evidence before us, Respondent was instrumental in both the implementation of the
PULSE Program at the SCSD and the securing of government grants to fund the PULSE
Program.
Respondent has attempted to divert all responsibility for selection of the PULSE
Program to others, including: a focus group on student support systems (with which
Respondent participated); the alleged leader of the group, James Breslin (who was
Respondent's subordinate); and the SCSD School Board (which had no involvement in
selecting programs). The credible evidence — including the testimony of disinterested
witnesses as well as documentary evidence -- establishes that it was Respondent who was in
fact responsible for steering the selection of the PULSE Program for the SCSD.
James Breslin ( "Breslin ") was employed by the SCSD from approximately 1994 to
November 1999. Breslin briefly served as director of personnel during Respondent's tenure
as superintendent. Breslin testified that Respondent brought the PULSE Program to his
attention. Breslin testified that Respondent never suggested to Breslin that Breslin look for
any peer mediation program other than PULSE. Breslin testified that Respondent formed a
committee and participated with the other Committee members in deciding to include the
PULSE program in a grant application. Breslin testified that Respondent instructed him to
present a report to the SCSD School Board regarding PULSE training at Camp Harmony and
the process of applying for a grant to fund the PULSE program. Breslin further testified that
Respondent gave him the task of writing grant applications, including grant applications to fund
the PULSE Program. Breslin testified that Respondent gave him information and material
regarding the PULSE Program and provided him with the name of Kings Bridge Incorporated
to insert as the contractor for the PULSE Program in the grant documents at ID -18.
William Hoffner ( "Hoffner ") served as the director of special education and student
services at the SCSD from approximately November 1999 to June 30, 2003. Hoffner testified
that he first heard of the PULSE Program at meetings of a committee initiated during
Respondent's tenure as superintendent. Respondent was part of the committee. It was
Hoffner's belief that Respondent was the first individual who mentioned PULSE at the
committee meetings. Hoffner testified that Respondent told the committee that the PULSE
Program was a program that might suit the needs and accomplish the goals of the
SCSD /committee. Hoffner testified that there was discussion by the committee that there
were probably other programs that would help to achieve such goals but that the committee
decided to adopt the PULSE Program.
Hoffner also testified that he participated in preparing grant applications that supported
the PULSE Program. Hoffner used prior grant documents and information and help provided
by Respondent. Hoffner did not make the decision as to whether to apply for grant funds, nor
did he make the decision as to which programs or consultants /contractors to include when
applying for grants. Hoffner specifically did not list Kings Bridge Incorporated as the
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 158
consultant /contractor for the PULSE program relative to the 2000 -2001 Safe Schools Initiative
Grant at ID -17, even though he worked on the grant documents for that grant.
Doctor Alan Lonoconus ( "Lonoconus "), the current SCSD superintendent, served as
administrative assistant to the superintendent and subsequently as high school principal
during Respondent's tenure as SCSD superintendent. Lonoconus first heard of the PULSE
Program from Respondent at a meeting of the SCSD administrative cabinet, which consisted
of Respondent and other administrators. Lonoconus testified that Respondent brought the
PULSE Program to the attention of the administrative cabinet and stated that it was a program
that he was familiar with because of his participation with other groups with it. Lonoconus
testified that the decision to use the PULSE Program at the SCSD was a result of
collaboration among the members of the administrative cabinet. Respondent directed the
formation of a group of SCSD staff members to be trained in the PULSE Program.
Respondent directed Lonoconus to attend a PULSE function as an observer. Respondent
approved Lonoconus' travel expense voucher at ID-15, page 9 for transporting students to a
PULSE retreat. Respondent was present at all PULSE functions involving the SCSD that
Lonoconus attended.
Louis Clippinger ( "Clippinger ") is employed as the Director of Curriculum Instruction for
the SCSD and has served in that capacity since 1999. Clippinger served as the elementary
principal at the SCSD from 1985 to 1999. Clippinger testified that the SCSD superintendent
made the final decisions as to what programs would be implemented at the SCSD.
Six current and former SCSD School Board members testified in this case. Based
upon a review of their testimony in conjunction with the official board minutes, it is clear that
the board did not participate in suggesting which programs would be in grant applications. The
board depended upon the superintendent to identify the programs that would be funded and to
get grants for the SCSD. SCSD School Director Daniel Yeager ( "Yeager ") testified that
Respondent told the board about the PULSE Program and stated that he (Respondent) felt
that it would best fit the school.
Respondent apprised the board of certain grants that were being pursued. However,
the only action the board took as to grants was to approve the acceptance of grant funds after
an award had been made (with the sole exception being the "re- filing" of the 21 S Century grant
that appears to have occurred on June 11, 2001. (See, Finding 30)). The SCSD School
Board agendas, as prepared by Respondent, included line items for the acceptance of grants
for funding of the PULSE Program.
In Respondent's Brief, Respondent asserts that the SCSD School Board approved the
institution of the PULSE Program, citing testimony by Porter that he voted to accept it.
(Respondent's Post - Hearing Brief, at 9 (quoting 7/15/03 Tr. at 170, lines 22 -23). However,
read in context, Porter's testimony was clearly referring to his votes to accept grant monies to
fund the PULSE Program. (7/15/03 Tr. at 170, lines 23 -25, through 171, line 1).
As for the grant applications and related documents themselves, such documents are
replete with actions taken by Respondent in his official capacity as SCSD superintendent, as
detailed in Findings 33 -34, 37 -38, 40 -42, 46, 48, 50, 52, 55, 58, 64, 67 -68, 74 -75, 78 -79, 83,
84 -85, 87, 98, 202, 214 -218, 220 -224, and 226. Respondent signed grant applications,
requisite memoranda of understanding /agreements regarding cooperation with third parties
such as law enforcement authorities, modification requests, agreements for grants,
acceptances of grants, and required fiscal /expenditure reports. In some instances,
Respondent was listed as the contact person, program director, member of a required
community advisory council, or person responsible for accomplishing certain objectives under
the grants.
Respondent's actions were a direct cause of the implementation of the PULSE
Program at the SCSD. But for Respondent's actions, the PULSE Program would not have
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 159
been implemented at the SCSD. The only evidence to indicate that anyone at the SCSD had
even heard of the PULSE Program prior to Respondent mentioning it, was Respondent's own
testimony that two staff members had attended a presentation regarding the program in the fall
of 1997. Those staff members were not produced as witnesses, and, as noted above, we
have determined that Respondent is not credible. Finally, even if the two staff members had
heard of the PULSE Program, it is clear that the Respondent brought the program to the
SCSD.
Respondent was instrumental in implementing the PULSE Program at the SCSD.
Although Respondent specifically testified in these proceedings that he was not instrumental
in implementing the PULSE program at the SCSD, the Investigative Division produced as
rebuttal evidence Respondent's own application that he submitted for his current job as
superintendent at Upper Dublin School District. In the application, Respondent specifically
stated that he was instrumental in successfully implementing PULSE at the SCSD. (See,
Findings 200 dd -ee). The contradiction between Respondents testimony and this admission
against Respondent's interests is a very clear illustration of Respondent's lack of credibility.
(See, Finding 201).
Respondent's attempt to rehabilitate his testimony by distinguishing between meanings
of the word "implement" (Respondent's Post - Hearinq Brief at 103 -104) is to no avail, because
the credible evidence establishes that Respondent was instrumental in implementing the
PULSE program at SCSD in every sense of the word.
Respondent asserts error and prejudice as to the evidentiary ruling admitting into
evidence his aforesaid application to Upper Dublin School District. (Respondent's Post -
Hearinq Brief at 103 -104). Respondent's argument is without merit. Since Respondent's
testimony was directly contradicted by his statement in the application, there is no question
that the application was admissible as rebuttal evidence.
As for Respondent's protestations that he was not provided with this evidence in
advance of the hearing (8/22/03 Tr. at 132), we hold that the statutory requirement that the
Investigative Division provide the subject of an investigation with access to evidence intended
to be used at the hearing (65 Pa.C.S. § 1108(e)) does not extend to rebuttal evidence. It
would be a ludicrous interpretation of the law to require the Investigative Division to
demonstrate in advance to a Respondent how it will rebut testimony that has not yet been
given. "The object of all interpretation and construction of statutes is to ascertain and
effectuate the intention of the General Assembly," 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(a), and "... the General
Assembly does not intend a result that is absurd, impossible of execution or unreasonable." 1
Pa.C.S. § 1922.
With the implementation of the PULSE Program at the SCSD using government grant
funds, Respondent caused such grant monies to flow to Kings Bridge Incorporated
commencing in January 2000.
Interestingly, at almost exactly the same time grant monies began to flow from the
SCSD to Kings Bridge, monies also began to flow to Kings Bridge from the Huntingdon Area
School District, where Waleski was employed, and from the West Greene School District,
where Rembold was employed, although monies from West Greene were paid to Kings Bridge
indirectly, through a pass- through arrangement between Kings Bridge Incorporated and
Mainstream Counseling, Incorporated. (See, Findings 177 k, n; 208; 227; 234).
In early December 1999, just before the monies began to flow to the previously
dormant Kings Bridge, the corporation entered into a contract with Mainstream Counseling,
Incorporated, which contract is set forth in pertinent part at Finding 234. Under the contract,
Mainstream Counseling served as a billing agent for Kings Bridge. Initially, this arrangement
was used for PULSE functions at the West Greene School District but not at the SCSD.
Mainstream billed West Greene School District for PULSE programs and then forwarded all
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 160
but approximately 5% of the monies received to Kings Bridge. Mainstream kept the 5% as an
"administrative fee."
The billing arrangement was not used at the SCSD, even as to consolidated training
sessions involving both school districts, until February 2001, at which time Respondent asked
Mainstream Counseling to perform such a transaction. Lonnie Woomer ( "Woomer "), the
Executive Director and sole shareholder of Mainstream Counseling, Inc., testified that the
February 2001 billing to the SCSD was generated at the request of the Respondent. This
particular billing is documented at ID -27, pages 35 -41. Mainstream Counseling billed the
SCSD in the total amount of $11,000.00. Kings Bridge billed Mainstream Counseling in the
total amount of $10,450.00. Mainstream Counseling kept the remaining $550.00 as its
administrative fee.
The February 2001 billing from Mainstream Counseling was paid using the 2000 -2001
Safe Schools Initiative Grant #4 in the amount of $22,800.00 received by the SCSD. See,
Finding 174 bb (3)). The records for this particular grant are in evidence at ID -17. (See,
Finding 217). Although the grant application initially listed Kings Bridge Incorporated as the
consultant /contractor for the PULSE training in question, changes were made in October 2000
and in February 2001 that switched the vendor to Mainstream Counseling. The change of
vendor may very well have been triggered by questions raised by Porter on or about July 17,
2000, when he first became aware of Kings Bridge Incorporated due to its inclusion on a
SCSD bill list. (See, Finding 173 r). In any event, the reasons that Respondent has proffered
for the change are not credible. (See, Finding 201 e).
SCSD payments to Kings Bridge Inc. and Mainstream Counseling, Inc. were made
using government grant moneys received under grants in evidence as to which Respondent
had official involvement as SCSD superintendent. The Investigative Division has established
a conclusive financial trace through the bank records, records of the SCSD, grant documents,
and records of Mainstream Counseling, Incorporated, all of which are in evidence:
1. The first payment from the SCSD to Kings Bridge was SCSD check number
20175 dated 1/7/00, in the amount of $7,000.00, for Kings Bridge Invoice
number 58017, and was paid using the 1999 -2000 Safe Schools Initiative
Grant #1 (ID -19). (See, Findings 174 z(3)(a); 209(a)).
2. The second payment from the SCSD to Kings Bridge was SCSD check
number 20705 dated 4/6/00, in the amount o $5,40 .00, for Kings Bridge
Invoice number 58022, and was paid using three different grants, with $422.84
coming from the 1999 -2000 Safe Schools Initiative Grant #1 (ID -19); $1,777.16
coming from the 1999 -2000 Safe Schools Initiative Grant #3 (ID -15); and
$3,200.00 coming from the 1999 -2000 Safe Schools Initiative Grant #2 (ID -20).
(See, Findings 174 z(3)(b); 174 y(3)(a); 174 aa(3)(a); 209(b)).
3. The third payment from the SCSD to Kings Bridge was SCSD check number
21037 dated 6/7/00, in the amount of $7,000.00, for Kings Bridge Invoice
number 58028, and was paid using the 1999 -2000 Safe Schools Initiative
Grant #3 (ID -15). (See, Findings 174 y(3)(b); 209(c)).
4. The fourth payment from the SCSD to Kings Bridge was SCSD check number
21223 dated 6/28/00, in the amount of $6,000.00, for Kings Bridge Invoice
number 58032, and was paid using the 1999 -2000 Safe Schools Initiative
Grant #3 (ID -15). (See, Findings 174 y(3)(c); 209(d)).
5. The fifth payment from the SCSD to Kings Bridge was through Mainstream
Counseling, Inc. by SCSD check number 22632 dated 2/7/01, in the amount of
$11,000.00, for Mainstream Counseling, Inc. Invoice number 8501, and was
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 161
paid using the 2000 -2001 Safe Schools Initiative Grant #4 (ID -21). (See,
Findings 174 bb(3)(a); 209(e)).
Of the five payments noted above, the first four were generated by Kings Bridge
invoices /purchase orders and the fifth was generated by a Mainstream Counseling, Inc.
invoice. Respondent used the authority of his position as SCSD superintendent when he
approved all five of these invoices /purchase orders for payment by the SCSD. Respondent
initialed three of the Kings Bridge invoices /purchase orders -- specifically, those numbered
58022, 58028, and 58032 -- approving them for payment. (See, Finding 91). Respondent
verbally approved the remaining Kings Bridge invoice /purchase order (number 58017) as well
as the Mainstream Counseling, Inc. invoice (number 8501). (See, Findings 92 -93).
Respondent additionally acted in his capacity as SCSD superintendent when he
claimed and received expense reimbursements for himself and authorized payments of
expenses incurred by others with respect to PULSE functions.
Respondent's official actions set forth above and in greater detail in the Findings
resulted in a clear financial benefit to Kings Bridge Incorporated. From January 2000 to
February 2001, this corporation that had been dormant in the years prior to 2000 received
payments for SCSD PULSE trainings totaling $35,850.00.
As noted above, one of the issues before this Commission is whether Respondent was
a director of Kings Bridge Incorporated. This issue is significant because if Respondent was a
director, Kings Bridge Incorporated was a business with which Respondent was associated.
65 Pa.C.S. § 1102.
The evidence as to Respondent's status as a director consists of testimony by Brown,
Christine B. Hakes ( "Hakes "), 1Business Manager and School Board Secretary of the Camp
Hill School District, and Cornelius Cain ( "Cain "), superintendent of the Camp Hill School
District, as to conversations involving Respondent that would suggest that Respondent was a
principal of the company; a letter of recommendation from Rembold, used by Respondent
when applying to the SCSD - -and to Upper Dublin School District after issues had arisen at the
SCSD regarding Respondent's connection with Kings Bridge -- which letter indicated that
Rembold had worked with Respondent by establishing PULSAR Inc. and Organizational
Harmony, now known as Kings Bridge, Inc.; and most significantly, annual reports filed by
Thacker with the Commonwealth of Virginia State Corporation Commission for the years 1993
through 2000, prior to any issues arising at the SCSD, which reports listed Respondent as a
director of Kings Bridge.
In considering the above evidence, the various testimony as to conversations as well as
Rembold's letter of recommendation, in and of themselves, are not dispositive as to whether
Respondent was a director of Kings Bridge. However, the annual reports are definitive
evidence that Respondent was in fact a director of Kings Bridge.
Respondent contends that the annual reports filed by Thacker with the Commonwealth
of Virginia State Corporation Commission are hearsay and of no probative value, particularly
since Thacker testified under oath that the facts as to Respondent's directorship were wrongly
stated. (Respondent's Post - Hearing Brief, at 34). We disagree. The annual reports were
properly authenticated, government records filed by Thacker under statements affirming that
the information contained therein was true, and importantly, they were filed long before
Thacker had any reason to lie.
The evidence proffered by Respondent in support of his claim that he was not a
director of Kings Bridge consists of his own inconsistent assertions (see, Finding 201 g),
Thacker's purported minutes of Kings Bridge meetings, and the contrived testimony of
Thacker see, Finding 198 e), all of which we find to be not credible for the reasons stated in
the cited Findings.
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 162
Respondent argues that he could not be made a director of Kings Bridge without his
consent or knowledge, citing Stephens v. State Ethics Commission, 571 A.2d 1120 (1990).
(Respondent's Post - Hearinq Brief, at 34 -35). Respondent's attempt to apply Stephens to this
case fails because it presupposes that we believe his testimony. To the contrary, both
Respondent and Thacker are not credible. While we will not reiterate here all of the specific
reasons that Respondent and Thacker are not credible, we will note that we do not believe that
Respondent, an intelligent and well- educated individual, suddenly discovered in 1997 that
Thacker had listed him as a director of Kings Bridge against his will, yet did nothing to ensure
his removal as a director other than to tell Thacker —the person who purportedly listed him
against his will in the first place —to remove him.
We find that there is clear and convincing proof establishing that Respondent was a
director of Kings Bridge Incorporated during the time period under review in this case until April
16, 2001, when Respondent tendered to Thacker a writing that would have the effect of a
resignation from the board of directors. (See, Findings 247 -248). We further find as fact that
Respondent specifically knew that he was a director of Kings Bridge during the time period
under review in this case and that he accepted such status. Consequently, Kings Bridge,
Incorporated was a business with which Respondent was associated in his capacity as
director during the time period under review in this case until April 16, 2001.
All payments from SCSD made directly to Kings Bridge and made indirectly to Kings
Bridge through Mainstream Counseling, Inc., were made while Respondent was a director of
Kings Bridge, prior to his letter to Thacker dated April 16, 2001.
As the money began to flow to Kings Bridge from the SCSD, so too the money began
to flow from Kings Bridge to the Respondent. Respondent, who admittedly had never received
a dime from Kings Bridge prior to 2000 (see, Findings 200 o, uu), suddenly received his first
payment from Kings Bridge on January 25, 2000, approximately 2% weeks after the first
payment was made by the SCSD to Kings Bridge for the first PULSE training performed for
the SCSD. From January 25, 2000, to July 6, 2001, Kings Bridge issued eight payments to
the Respondent totaling $27,900.00.
Five of the eight payments from Kings Bridge to Respondent were made during or in
close proximity in time to the five SCSD PULSE trainings that occurred (see, Findings 191 g;
200 uu, ww -yy; 207 -208), as follows:
1. Respondent admittedly performed program responsibilities at the consolidated
PULSE training on January 11 -13, 2000. Respondent received a payment
dated January 25, 2000 in the amount of $3,500.00, which payment was issued
in the same amount and on the same date as other checks issued by Kings
Bridge Incorporated to other trainers at this event.
2. PULSE training was performed for the SCSD on March 14 -16, 2000. The
Kings Bridge invoice for this training listed 2 consultants for 2% days and 1 day
of "prep & planning." (ID -9, page 2). Respondent initialed this particular
invoice, approving it for L ayyment. Respondent and one other individual who
frequently performed PULSE trainings were issued checks from Kings Bridge
dated April 26, 2000, each in the amount of $900.00 with the notation
"consulting."
3. Woomer testified that Respondent was present at the PULSE training on May
9 -11, 2000. At the time of this training, Respondent received a check dated
May 10, 2000, in the amount of $4,000.00 with a notation "MS training" in the
memo section of the check. A check in the same amount, bearing the same
date and notation, was issued to Rembold, who was also at this PULSE
training. Similar checks were issued on this same date to others who
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 163
participated as trainers at the session. Respondent initialed the Kings Bridge
invoice for this session, approving it for payment.
4. PULSE training was conducted for the SCSD Middle School on June 14 -15,
2000. Respondent testified that Thacker and Rembold participated in the
training. Respondent denied participating in the training. Kings Bridge issued
checks in the amount of $2,000.00 to Respondent, Thacker and Rembold. The
checks to Respondent and Rembold were dated June 15, 2000, and the check
to Thacker was dated June 17, 2000. The checks all bore references to
consulting in the memo portions of the checks. Respondent initialed the Kings
Bridge invoice for this session, approving it for payment.
5. Woomer testified that Respondent was present at the PULSE training that
occurred on or about February 6 -8, 2001. At the time of this training,
Respondent received a check dated February 7, 2001, in the amount of
$4,000.00 with the notation "Feb. 2001 consultant" in the memo section of the
check. Similar checks were issued on this same date to others who participated
as trainers at the session.
Respondent denied that any of his checks were for SCSD PULSE training
Respondent denied being compensated for services that he rendered at SCSD PULSE
trainings. Respondent averred that the SCSD received discounts for his services, and that
the above payments that he received were for research and data collection work that he had
done over the years for Kings Bridge without any certainty of ever getting paid.
Thacker, whose testimony on numerous subjects -- including this one - -was not credible
(see, Finding 198), similarly testified that Respondent was not paid by Kings Bridge for
services rendered to the SCSD.
Based upon a review of the evidence, we conclude that there is clear and convincing
proof, including circumstantial evidence, that the above five payments to the Respondent were
for PULSE - related services provided to the SCSD.
Three other payments from Kings Bridge to Respondent must be considered.
The first of these three payments is a check dated 8/15/00 in the amount of $2,000.00,
which was issued two months after the 6/14/00- 6/15/00 SCSD PULSE training and
approximately six months before the next SCSD PULSE training on 2/6/01- 2/8/01. It was not
in close proximity to a PULSE training, nor was it issued in conjunction with other payments to
trainers as were the checks described above.
The second and third of these payments were issued 6/15/01 and 7/6/01 and were in
the amounts of $6,000.00 and $5,500.00 respectively. These checks were issued long after
any SCSD PULSE training. We do not believe that any portion of either of these payments
was for Respondent's dissertation, as Respondent has asserted. Respondent authored a
letter (ID -55) demanding these two payments, which letter does not mention Respondent's
dissertation. Furthermore, Respondent's testimony that Thacker proposed paying him up to
$10,000.00 for his dissertation, and that Respondent stated that whatever Thacker wanted to
pay him would be good, was simply not believable.
Respondent's letter specifically claimed that the latter two payments were for research,
curriculum writing and certain presentations on the PULSE PLUS 3 program, which
Respondent testified was a new program in 2001. If these were the true purposes of the
checks, the payments constituted an unauthorized financial gain to the Respondent, who
failed to secure SCSD School Board approval for engaging in outside work on PULSE PLUS
3, a new project. (See, Findings 173 g -h, 200 s).
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 164
But regardless of the purpose of the above three payments, or indeed, of any of the
payments referenced above that Respondent received from Kings Bridge, Respondent's
actions as SCSD superintendent in matters pertaining to the PULSE Program and grants to
fund it directly advanced the ability of Kings Bridge to tender to Respondent all of these
payments. Respondent has admitted as much in his Post - Hearing Brief which states: "It is
not denied that fees paid at Southern Columbia Area School District provided Kings Bridge,
Inc, with funds to support its payments to Respondent (and others).' (Respondent's Post -
Hearinq Brief, at 63). This admission by Respondent in his Brief is sufficient in and of itself to
establish the element of a private pecuniary benefit to Respondent.
We shall now review the material facts pertaining to the alleged absence of an open
and public process as to contracting involving the SCSD and Kings Bridge.
For the first four SCSD PULSE training events (January 11 -13, 2000; March 14 -16,
2000; May 9 -11, 2000; and June 14 -15, 2000), the SCSD contracted directly with Kings
Bridge.
For the fifth SCSD PULSE training event (February 6 -8, 2001), Mainstream
Counseling, Inc., replaced Kings Bridge as the contractor listed in the grant documents, but in
reality, served as a mere conduit for the payment to Kings Bridge, keeping only $550.00 of the
total $11,000.00 as an "administrative fee." If we interpret the credible evidence as to this
contract in the light least favorable to Respondent, Mainstream Counseling, Inc. was a mere
"straw party" to the contract, and Kings Bridge was the real contractor. If we interpret the
credible evidence as to this contract in the light most favorable to Respondent, Mainstream
Counseling, Inc. superficially subcontracted the work to Kings Bridge. Under either
interpretation, Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act would apply. We adopt the interpretation most
favorable to the Respondent and conclude that Mainstream Counseling, Inc. superficially
subcontracted the work to Kings Bridge.
SCSD Business Manager Joseph Springer ( "Springer ") testified that to the best of his
knowledge, the SCSD never put out for public bid any requests for proposals in relation to
PULSE training services. Springer testified that he advised Respondent that public bidding
was not needed for training services, being of the understanding at that time that Respondent
was a trainer for the PULSE Program but would not be compensated for training services for
the SCSD other than by his salary as superintendent. We conclude that there is clear and
convincing proof that factually, there was no open and public process for any of the work
performed by Kings Bridge Incorporated for the SCSD.
Turning to areas involving alleged dual compensation, the Investigative Division has
conducted a comparison of Respondent's reported leave at both the Camp Hill School District
and the SCSD to Respondent's time and service records at ID -32, pages 8 -17, for which
Respondent claimed to have rovided services such as research and writing to Kings Bridge
Inc. (ID -43). (See, Finding 191 I). Of the weekdays so identified, all but four were for half -
days.
For four weekdays, Respondent claimed to have worked a full day for Kings Bridge
Inc., yet he did not take leave from his employer school district. Of the four dates, Respondent
contends that one date —July 3, 1998 —was a holiday for him, and the other three — February
9, 1998, February 26, 1998, and May 17, 1999 —were listed erroneously on his sheets and
should have been different dates.
We conclude that there is not clear and convincing proof to establish that Respondent
performed work for Kings Bridge on the identified weekdays without taking required leave from
the applicable school district. First, half -days could have been performed outside school
hours. Second, it is entirely plausible that a school administrator might take holiday leave on
July 3, there being no evidence in this case to the contrary. Third, it is entirely possible that
expense sheets would include errors, just as the demonstrative chart itself contained a minor
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 165
error. However, fundamentally, we consider Respondent's proffered time and service records
to be of dubious validity, based upon Respondent's lack of credibility.
The Investigative Division also conducted a comparison of Respondent's reported
leave at both the Camp Hill School District and the SCSD to established dates on which
Respondent provided compensated consulting services to Cabell County Schools. (ID -44).
(See, Finding 191 m). On Thursday, November 6, 1997, Respondent was compensated for
such services for a half -day. On Friday, November 7, 1997, Respondent was compensated
for such services for a full day. On March 4, 1999, Respondent was compensated for such
services for a full day.
Respondent testified that on November 6, 1997, he was at the West Greene School
District on business for Camp Hill during the day and performed services for Cabell County in
the evening. Respondent testified that the work for Camp Hill involved gathering information
regarding "4-MAT" training relative to his duties at Camp Hill. With regard to this claim, we
would note that Respondent's former superior, Camp Hill School District Superintendent Cain,
testified that to his knowledge, the Camp Hill School District did not have any official business
dealings with the West Greene School District. However, Cain testified that administrators of
the Camp Hill School District were permitted to "call" any other school district anywhere for
professional information or collaboration, regardless of whether the Camp Hill School District
had formal business transactions with such other districts. There was no specific testimony as
to whether this would extend to travel to another such school district for professional
information or collaboration.
Respondent testified that on November 7, 1997, he was performing services for Cabell
County using compensatory time from the Camp Hill School District. With regard to this claim,
we would note that ID -30, pages 5 -12 consist of absentee record forms used by Respondent
to report leave to the Superintendent of the Camp Hill School District. (See, Findings 189 g,
190 g(2), 230 f). Although Cain testified that there was no problem with Respondent's use of
leave, the documents in evidence prove otherwise as to November 7, 1997. The absentee
record forms have spaces for indicating the type of leave taken, including comp time. The
official records of the Camp Hill School District do not include any leave slip from Respondent
reporting comp time leave for November 7, 1997.
Respondent testified that March 4, 1999, was a snow day at the SCSD, and that he
worked for Cabell County in the evening.
In addition to the above three dates, there are Findings pertaining to yet another date,
Friday, March 9, 2001. (See, Findings 135, 212 d). Respondent conducted training on that
date for the Cabell County Schools. Respondent testified that on March 9, 2001, he was at
the West Greene School District during the day on business for the SCSD.
In considering the above, we determine that there is clear and convincing proof that as
to one date, November 7, 1997, Respondent performed compensated consulting services for
a full day at the Cabell County School District without taking leave from his employer school
district, specifically, the Camp Hill School District.
During the time period that Respondent was employed at the Camp Hill School District,
if a Camp Hill School District employee engaged in supplemental employment during school
hours, the employee was required to submit a leave slip. Additionally, Camp Hill School
District Superintendent Cain testified that It was an unwritten policy of the Camp Hill School
District that an administrator engaging in activities outside the school district for which the
administrator would be paid was required to choose between the following two options: (1) for
education - related activities, taking a "professional day" without being assessed leave but
subject to the requirement of providing all of the compensation earned to the Camp Hill School
District; or (2) taking a personal day or vacation day and keeping the compensation. Cain
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 166
testified that he told Respondent of these options when Respondent apprised Cain of a
business engagement that Respondent had, which was to occur on school time.
Cabell County Schools paid Respondent $500.00 for the consulting services rendered
on November 7, 1997. (See, Finding 212 a(2)). The Camp Hill School District paid employee
compensation to Respondent for November 7, 1997, in the amount of $279.84. (See, Finding
191 m(2)). Respondent did not take leave on that date, and Respondent never made any
reimbursement to the Camp Hill School District of any compensation earned outside of the
Camp Hill School District.
We shall now review the facts pertaining to Respondent's retention of the laptop he
received at the Superintendents' Technology Leadership Academy conference in the summer
of 2000. It has been clearly established that Respondent attended the conference at the
expense of the SCSD. As an attendee, Respondent received a laptop computer and related
equipment purchased with state funds and having a total value of approximately $2,538.47.
The first announcement for the conference indicated that the attendee would receive a
laptop of his choice that he could keep after the academy. (R -4). During the conference,
attendees were verbally informed that the laptop was theirs to use at their homes and at their
school districts but that the laptop was school district property if they chose to leave their
school districts.
When preparing to leave the SCSD, Respondent spoke to Holly Jobe ("Jobe"), who
had directed that program, regarding whether he could take the laptop with him to Upper
Dublin School District. Jobe told Respondent that he should keep the laptop computer at the
SCSD, and that if the SCSD School Board would permit him to take the laptop to Upper
Dublin School District, he could take it. Respondent testified that prior to leaving the SCSD,
he made at least one unsuccessful attempt to follow up with Julie Tritt Schell, an employee of
the Pennsylvania Department of Education who was also involved with the conference, and
then did not follow up further. Respondent left the SCSD with the laptop, knowing that there
was a question as to where it belonged. Respondent testified that as he was leaving the
SCSD, he verbally told a SCSD staff member to call him if the laptop was supposed to be
returned and he would return it. There was no other evidence supporting Respondent's
assertions in this regard.
Respondent further testified that he used the laptop as his working computer at Upper
Dublin School District and did not use it for personal use. No other witnesses were produced
by either party regarding the use that was made of the laptop computer after Respondent left
the SCSD.
Respondent returned the laptop computer to the SCSD on April 25, 2002, with the
letter to Springer that is in evidence at ID -29, page 6. (See, Findings 115, 229 b).
The Investigative Division has asserted that Respondent received a financial gain in
the total amount of $1,173.30 as a result of having the laptop computer for 10 months after
leaving the SCSD. The calculation (ID -46) uses a lower purchase cost for the computer
($2,464.00) as most favorable to the Respondent, but is based upon the premise that the cost
of the computer may be amortized over the 21 months the computer was in Respondent's
possession during and after service at the SCSD.
Based upon our review of the evidence, we find that there was confusion generated by
the various announcements prior to and during the 2000 Superintendents' Technology
Leadership Academy conference. Additionally, we determine that there is a lack of clear and
convincing proof to establish that after Respondent left the SCSD, the laptop was used for
personal purposes rather than for the benefit of another governmental body, specifically the
Upper Dublin School District. Finally, there is an insufficient factual basis to support the
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 167
valuation method proposed by the Investigative Division, in that there is no basis to establish
the proper amortization period for the value of the laptop computer.
We shall now review the material facts pertaining to Respondent's Statements of
Financial Interests.
Respondent was employed as Director of Educational Services at the Camp Hill School
District from August 5, 1996, until August 7, 1998. (Finding 9 b). Respondent's initial filing at
the Camp Hill School District would have been required by May 1, 1997 for calendar year
1996. See, Sciotto, Opinion 95 -005. Respondent would have also been required to file
Statements of Financial Interests with Camp Hill School District by May 1, 1998, for calendar
year 1997 and by May 1, 1999, for calendar year 1998. No further filings would have been
required of Respondent as to the Camp Hill School District. 65 Pa.C.S. § 1104(a).
The official records of the Camp Hill School District include only one Statement of
Financial Interests for Respondent, that being the one at ID -30, page 17. (See, Findings 189
a, 230 a). The lack of any other Statements of Financial Interests for Respondent in the
official records evidences the fact that they were not filed. Cf., 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 6103(b),
6104(b). There is no established basis in the record of this case for doubting Camp Hill
School District Business Manager Hake's trustworthiness as a custodian of records for the
Camp Hill School District or for doubting the reliability of the school district records
themselves.
The particular Statement of Financial Interests for Respondent that is in the official
records of the Camp Hill School District bears an illegible date in 1997 and is on SEC -1 REV.
1/97, such that it necessarily was for calendar year 1996 (since like tax returns, forms are filed
for the prior calendar year, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1104(a)). This particular form is not the subject of
the allegations before us.
It has been established that Respondent failed to file Statements of Financial Interests
with the Camp Hill School District for calendar years 1997 and 1998.
As for filings at the SCSD, Respondent was employed as superintendent of the SCSD
from July 14, 1998, until June 30, 2001. (Finding 9). Respondent's initial filing at the SCSD
would have been required by May 1, 1999 for calendar year 1998. Sciotto, supra.
Respondent would have also been required to file Statements of Financial Interests with the
SCSD by May 1, 2000, for calendar year 1999; by May 1, 2001, for calendar year 2000; and
by May 1, 2002, for calendar year 2001. 65 Pa.C.S. § 1104(a).
It has been established that Respondent filed Statements of Financial Interests with the
SCSD for calendar years 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001. (See, Finding 121). The 2001
calendar year filing at the SCSD is not the subject of the allegations before us.
It has been established that in calendar year 2000, Respondent received from Kings
Bridge Incorporated income, as that term is defined by the Ethics Act, which was well in
excess of $1,300.00, yet Respondent failed to disclose it.
Additionally, it has been established and Respondent has admitted that his 1999 and
2000 calendar year amended Statements of Financial Interests failed to disclose Cabell
County as a source of income in excess of $1,300.00. (See, Findings 128, 140; Findings
212 b -c).
Finally, we shall review the material facts pertaining to alleged uses by Respondent of
equipment, facilities, personnel, materials and time of the SCSD and Camp Hill School District
for his private business interests, including but not limited to Kings Bridge, Inc.
With respect to the Camp Hill School District, where Respondent had a direct
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 168
telephone line to his office, the material facts are that:
1. Administrators of the Camp Hill School District were permitted to call any other
school district anywhere for professional information or collaboration, regardless
of whether the Camp Hill School District had formal business transactions with
such other districts (Finding 190 b);
2. Administrators of the Camp Hill School District were permitted to use school
district telephones infrequently for personal calls subject to the requirement that
they reimburse the school district for the charges (Findings 1890), 190 c);
3. Administrators of the Camp Hill School District were not permitted to use school
district facilities, equipment and the like for any purposes that had to do with
their earning money in some other capacity (Finding 190 d);
4. Administrators of the Camp Hill School District were not permitted to use the
school district telephones for supplemental employment or business purposes
(Finding 190 e);
5. Camp Hill School District Superintendent Cain was not aware of any problem
with Respondent's use of Camp Hill School District facilities including the
telephones, equipment or stationery (Finding 190 f);
6. Respondent used the resources of the school district to facilitate his private
business dealings with the Cabell County Board of Education, which resources
included the use of telephones and e-mail address (Finding 129);
7. Respondent provided his school district contact information to Cabell County
Board of Education employees, who contacted Respondent at the school
district in matters pertaining to Respondent's private consulting work and
unrelated to the work of his employer school district (Findings 130 -131);
8. Respondent placed long distance telephone calls from his Camp Hill School
District office telephone relating to non - district business and other personal
endeavors (Finding 149);
9. Respondent placed a long distance telephone call from his Camp Hill School
District office telephone to the SCSD on April 23, 1998, which call was placed
at a time when Respondent was seeking employment with the SCSD and which
call did not relate to Respondent's duties for the Camp Hill School District
(Finding 151);
10. Respondent laced calls to his insurer, State Farm Insurance Company, in
matters that did not relate to his duties for the Camp Hill School District (Finding
152);
11. ID -30, pages 24 -30 consist of detailed telephone records for Respondent's
telephone line at the Camp Hill School District (Findings 189 j, 230 g);
12. When applying for the position of SCSD superintendent, Respondent used his
telephone number and e-mail address at the Camp Hill School District as points
of contact (Finding 10);
13. Respondent testified that he made every attempt to pay for all of his personal
telephone calls at the Camp Hill School District and that he may have overpaid
in some cases (Finding 200 ddd);
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 169
14. Respondent testified that for some numbers that he called, some calls to the
number would be personal and others would be related to the business of the
school district and that such calls would definitely include calls to Rembold and
would also include calls to Thacker (Finding 200 ddd(2)); and
15. Respondent testified that he did not recall using any Camp Hill stationery
(Finding 200 eee).
With respect to the SCSD, where Respondent did not have a direct telephone line
assigned to him but had access to a general telephone line, the material facts are that:
1. The SCSD School Board adopted two policies on March 8, 1999 (ID -50), which
policies prohibited, inter alia, use of school time for outside activities and use of
school equipment and facilities such as district telephones, materials, tools,
supplies, equipment or district vehicles, by district staff for personal use absent
authorization or administrative permission in accordance with guidelines set
forth therein (Finding 237);
2. SCSD employees were permitted to use SCSD telephones for personal long
distance telephone calls rovided the user reimburse the SCSD for the charges
(Findings 154, 174 gg(2));
3. ID -33 consists of true and correct copies of records of the SCSD pertaining to
long distance telephone charges billed to the SCSD and certain
reimbursements made by Respondent for personal telephone calls (Finding 174
99);
4. Respondent used the resources of the school district to conduct and facilitate
his private business dealings with the Cabell County Board of Education, which
resources included the use of telephones and e-mail address (Findings 129,
157);
5. Respondent provided his school district contact information to Cabell County
Board of Education employees, who contacted Respondent at the school
district in matters pertaining to Respondent's private consulting work and
unrelated to the work of his employer school district (Findings 130 -131);
6. Respondent utilized SCSD telephones to place telephone calls to Cabell
County School offices and /or representatives relative to Respondent's private
business dealings with Cabell County School District (Findings 157 -158);
7. Respondent utilized SCSD telephones to place telephone calls to Rembold at
the Nest Greene School District relative to Respondent's private business
dealings with Cabell County School District (Finding 158 b);
8. Respondent used the mailing address of the SCSD on an invoice to the Cabell
County Board of Education for his private consulting services (Finding 133);
9. Respondent placed telephone calls from the SCSD to Thacker, Rembold,
Waleski, and Mainstream Counseling (Lonnie Woomer) related to Kings Bridge,
Inc. business (Finding 159);
10. Respondent received telephone calls at the SCSD from Thacker, Rembold,
Waleski, and Woomer, none of whom were employed by the SCSD (Findings
161 -162);
11. Respondent received and sent faxes utilizing fax machines of the SCSD for the
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 170
benefit of his private business dealings with Kings Bridge (Finding 170);
12. ID -48 is a listing and calculation by the Investigative Division as to what it
contends were personal telephone calls made by Respondent from the SCSD
telephones for which no reimbursement was made, which listing and calculation
is based upon: (a) Bender's review of telephone records in evidence at ID -33 in
which Respondent highlighted certain telephone calls as being his and being
personal in nature; (b) the location of those same telephone numbers at other
places in the telephone records where Respondent did not highlight or make
reimbursement for the calls; and (c) the assumption that if a call to a particular
number was made by Respondent and was personal on at least one occasion, it
was made by Respondent and was personal on every occasion (Finding 191 r);
13. ID -49 is a listing and calculation by the Investigative Division as to what it
contends were calls made by Respondent from the SCSD to Kings Bridge Inc.
or Kings Bridge Inc. associates for which no reimbursement was made, which
listing and calculation is based upon: (a) Bender's review of telephone records
in evidence at ID -33 to numbers Bender stated were identified as being
associated with people involved with either Mainstream Counseling or Kings
Bridge; and (b) the assumption that all calls to those numbers were made by
Respondent (Finding 191 s);
14. Respondent testified that he made every attempt to pay for all of his personal
telephone calls at the SCSD and that he may have overpaid in some cases
(Finding 200 ddd);
15. Respondent avers that he made reimbursement payments to the SCSD as
detailed in Finding 156 as well as additional reimbursements with currency
(Finding 156);
16. Respondent testified that for some numbers that he called, some calls to the
number would be personal and others would be related to the business of the
school district and that such calls would definitely include calls to Rembold and
would also include calls to Thacker, although he believed the calls he made
from the SCSD to Thacker related to SCSD business and not other business
(Finding 200 ddd(2)); and
17. Respondent testified that he did not use any SCSD stationery for personal use
(Finding 200 eee).
Having highlighted the facts and issues, we shall address certain legal arguments
raised by Respondent.
First, Respondent contends that while the Investigative Division may argue that it has
no duty to establish specific intent in this matter, it has elected to do so based upon statements
made during the Investigative Division's opening statement at the hearing in this matter.
(Respondent's Post - Hearinq Brief at 5). Intent is not a requisite element for a violation of the
Ethics Act, and the Investigative Division is not required to prove intent in order to establish
violations of the Ethics Act in this matter. See, e.q., Yocabet v. State Ethics Commission, 531
A.2d 536 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987) (holding that the township supervisor in that case violated
Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act even if he did not intend to do so). The significance of intent is
that when it is established by clear and convincing evidence, it is one of the factors that this
Commission may consider when determining whether to impose a treble penalty or to refer a
matter to law enforcement authorities. (See, State Ethics Commission Resolutions of March
29, 1990, and August 16, 1990).
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 171
Second, Respondent contends that the presumption of innocence is particularly
important in a matter where the hearing is conducted by a single Commissioner as Hearing
Officer. (Respondent's Post - Hearinq Brief at 12 -13). As a matter of law, the Respondent has
all of the due process rights and privileges of a party appearing before an administrative
agency of this Commonwealth. 65 Pa.C.S. § 1108(g). There is no question that the
Investigative Division bears the burden of proof in this matter, as in all investigative matters
before this Commission.
Third, Respondent contends that the Investigative Division focused upon establishing
that Respondent was a director of Kings Bridge Inc., yet failed to aver that particular status in
the allegation. (Respondent's Post - Hearinq Brief at 31). The argument is without merit. The
allegation specifically avers that Kings Bridge Inc. is a company with which Respondent is
associated and /or serves as an officer and /or employee, which terminology as a matter of law
encompasses status as a director. (See, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1102 (definitions of "business" and
"business with which he is associated ").
Fourth, Respondent claims that SCSD received a benefit from the PULSE Program
and did not suffer an adverse economic consequence, such that any economic impact upon it
was "de minimis." Respondent cites the case of Kraines v. State Ethics Commission, 805A.2d
677 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002), alloc. den., 572 Pa. 761, 818 A.2d 506 (2003), in support of this
contention. (Respondent's Post - Hearinq Brief at 70 -71, 78 -80).
Under the very clear language of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act and the related
definition of "conflict' or "conflict of interest" at Section 1102, the economic impact upon
SCSD is irrelevant to determining whether a violation of Section 1103(a) occurred in this case.
It is the economic impact upon Kings Bridge and the Respondent that is relevant.
As for the Kraines case, the instant matter is distinguishable from Kraines. There is no
evidence that the PULSE Program resulted in any savings to the school district. There is no
evidence that the PULSE Program was any less expensive than other such programs.
Furthermore, the purported "discount" to the SCSD based upon Respondent's participation
was artificial, because the Kings Bridge principals set the fees.
Furthermore, with all due respect to the panel that decided the Kraines case, the
approach taken by that panel conflicts with an earlier 2003 Commonwealth Court decision that
applied the same de minimis economic impact exception based upon its impact upon the public
officials /employees whose conduct was in question, not the impact upon the governmental
body. Salem Township Municipal Authority v. Township of Salem, 820 A.2d 888 (Pa. Cmwlth.
2003).
Fifth, Respondent asserts that contracts with Kings Bridge were exempted from the
public bidding requirements of the Public School Code, and that he understands the "open
and public process" required by the Ethics Act pertained to making revelations to his employer.
(Respondent's Post - Hearinq Brief at 60). Respondent's argument is inaccurate. The open
and public process required by Section 1103(f) includes "prior public notice and subsequent
public disclosure of all proposals considered and contracts awarded." 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(f).
The requirements of Section 1103(f) for an open and public contracting process applied in this
case regardless of the applicability or inapplicability of public bidding requirements under the
Public School Code. See, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1112.
We shall now determine whether Respondent violated the Ethics Act as alleged in the
Investigative Complaint. 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 (1991). Based
upon our review of the record, we find that there is clear and convincing proof to support
numerous violations of the Ethics Act under the allegations.
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 172
Clear and convincing proof is "testimony that 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 (Pa. 1998) (Citation omitted).
There is clear and convincing proof that Respondent violated Section 3(a)/1103(a) of
the Ethics Act when he used the authority of his public position for a private pecuniary benefit,
including but not limited to participating in actions of the SCSD to award a contract to provide
services for "at risk" students of the school district to King's Bridge, Inc., a business with which
he was associated and with which he had business dealings. Each element of a violation has
been established.
Respondent repeatedly used the authority of his public position to initiate and advance
the implementation of the PULSE Program at the SCSD and to secure and expend
government grant monies to fund it. It was Respondent who steered the selection of the
PULSE Program at SCSD. (See, Gallen, Order 1198). Respondent assigned his subordinate
Breslin to report to the SCSD School Board regarding the PULSE Program. Respondent
assigned his subordinates to prepare grant applications for the PULSE Program, and
Respondent provided information relative to the program for the grant applications. As for the
grant applications and related documents themselves, Respondent signed grant applications,
requisite memoranda of understanding /agreements regarding cooperation with third parties
such as law enforcement authorities, modification requests, agreements for grants,
acceptances of grants, and required fiscal /expenditure reports. In some instances,
Respondent was listed as the contact person, program director, member of a required
community advisory council, or person responsible for accomplishing certain objectives under
the grants.
Respondent listed on the agendas for SCSD School Board meetings line items for the
acceptance of grants to fund the PULSE Program. Respondent authorized all of the invoices
of Kings Bridge Inc. as well as the invoice of Mainstream Counseling, Inc. for payment.
Respondent further used the authority of his public position in submitting for and receiving
expenses for himself and authorizing payments of others as to PULSE functions.
It would be difficult to imagine how Respondent could have been any more involved in
this matter. While claiming to distance himself from the issue, Respondent was, in fact, the
driving force behind it. There is clear and convincing proof that but for Respondent's actions
as SCSD superintendent, the PULSE Program would not have been implemented at the
SCSD or included in grant funding.
Moreover, while it is clear to us that Respondent's actions taken in his official capacity
did affect the SCSD's choice of the PULSE Program and its provider, Kings Bridge
Incorporated, we would parenthetically note that the case law is clear that the participation of a
public official /public employee with a private pecuniary interest need not affect the outcome of
the matter in order to violate the Ethics Act. Snyder v. State Ethics Commission, 686 A.2d
843 Pa. Cmwlth. 1996), alloc. den., 0029 M.D. Allocatur Docket 1997 (Pa. December 22,
199 .
Respondent's numerous and ongoing uses of the authority of his public position
resulted in a private pecuniary benefit for Kings Bridge, Incorporated, a business with which
Respondent was associated in his capacity as director, and for himself through payments
made by Kings Bridge Incorporated to Respondent. Five of the eight payments by Kings
Bridge Incorporated to Respondent were directly related to Respondent's services at SCSD
PULSE events. All eight payments from Kings Bridge Incorporated to Respondent were made
possible by Respondent's actions as SCSD superintendent to bring the PULSE Program to
SCSD and thereby generate funds to Kings Bridge, a previously dormant corporation.
Respondent violated Section 3(f)/1103(f) of the Ethics Act when contracts valued in
excess of $500.00 were awarded by the SCSD to King's Bridge, Inc., a business with which
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 173
Respondent was associated, and to Mainstream Counseling, Inc., which superficially
subcontracted the work valued in excess of $500.00 to Kings Bridge, Inc., without an open
and public process as to such contracts.
Furthermore, Respondent has admitted that he supervised the implementation of the
PULSE Program at the SCSD, (Respondent's Post - Hearinq Brief at 42), which supervisory
responsibility further contravened Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act.
However, Respondent did not violate Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act as to the
allegation that he was compensated by the SCSD while simultaneously being paid to perform
services for Kings Bridge, Inc., based upon a lack of clear and convincing proof. We have
concluded for several reasons, including the dubious validity of Respondent's time and service
records, that there is not clear and convincing proof to establish that Respondent performed
work for Kings Bridge on the identified dates, let alone that he did so without taking required
leave.
Respondent did not violate Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act as to the allegation
that he retained for his personal use a laptop computer that was property of the SCSD, based
upon a lack of clear and convincing proof. As noted above, there is a lack of clear and
convincing proof to establish that after Respondent left the SCSD, the laptop was used for
personal purposes rather than for the benefit of another governmental body, the Upper Dublin
School District. See, Warso, Order 974.
Respondent violated Section 5(b)(5)/1105(b) (5) of the Ethics Act when he failed to
disclose on Statements of Financial Interests filed for the 2000 calendar year income in
excess of $1,300 received from Kings Bridge, Inc.
Respondent violated Section 4(a)/1104(a) of the Ethics Act when he failed to file
Statements of Financial Interests for the 1997 and 1998 calendar years with the Camp Hill
School District. There is no question that these forms were legally required to be filed and that
the official records of the school district do not include such forms.
Respondent did not violate Section 5(b)(8)/1105(b)(8) of the Ethics Act as to the
allegation that he failed to disclose his office, directorship or employment in Kings Bridge Inc.,
a business entity on Statements of Financial Interests filed for the 1999 and 2000 calendar
years as to the Camp Hill School District in that Respondent was not required to file forms with
the Camp Hill School District for those calendar years.
Likewise, we find no violation of Section 5(b)(8)/1105(b)(8) of the Ethics Act regarding
the allegation that Respondent as Director of Educational Services for the Camp Hill School
District failed to disclose on Statements of Financial Interests for the 1999, 2000 and 2001
calendar years his office, directorship or employment in Tri- Chamber Foundation, an entity
where he serves as secretary, because Respondent was not required to file forms with the
Camp Hill School District for those calendar years.
Respondent violated Section 5(b)(5)/1105(b)(5) of the Ethics Act when he admittedly
failed to disclose Cabell County School istrict as a source of income in excess of $1,300 on
Statements of Financial Interests filed for the 1999 and 2000 calendar years. Respondent's
receipt of this reportable income during those calendar years has been established beyond
question by the documentary evidence before us.
We do not find a separate violation of Section 5(a)/1105(a) of the Ethics Act in that any
filing deficiency would necessarily involve, at a minimum, a failure to file the form as prescribed
by this Commission. Accordingly, we hold that there was no separate violation of Section
5(a)/1105(a) of the Ethics Act by Respondent in that such was subsumed and necessarily
included within his violations as to other specific Sections of the Ethics Act pertaining to
Statements of Financial Interests.
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 174
Finally, Respondent violated Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he utilized
SCSD and Camp Hill School District equipment, facilities, and time for his private business
interests, including but not limited to Kings Bridge, Inc. See, O'Connor, Order 1269. As to
this allegation, there is no question that such improper use occurred. Administrators of the
Camp Hill School District were not permitted to use school district facilities, equipment and the
like for any purposes that had to do with their earning money in some other capacity, yet
Respondent did so. Similarly, Respondent used the SCSD telephones, e-mail, mailing
address and fax equipment for his personal business pursuits. As for calls made by
Respondent regarding Kings Bridge business, such calls were either unrelated to the school
district, and therefore personal, or related to the school district, and therefore calls that
Respondent should not have been making due to his conflict of interest.
As for improper use of time, there is clear and convincing proof that on November 7,
1997, Respondent performed compensated consulting services for a full day at the Cabell
County School District without taking leave from the Camp Hill School District. Cabell County
Schools paid Respondent $500.00 for the consulting services rendered on November 7,
1997. (See, Finding 212 a(2)). The Camp Hill School District paid employee compensation to
Respondent for November 7, 1997, in the amount of $279.84. (See, Finding 191 m(2)).
Respondent did not take leave on that date, and Respondent never made any reimbursement
to the Camp Hill School District of any compensation earned outside of the Camp Hill School
District.
Thus, the violation occurred. However, the resulting private pecuniary benefit received
by Respondent has not been accurately quantified except as to the November 7, 1997 dual
compensation.
ID -48 was based upon an unsupported assumption that if a call to a particular number
was identified as personal on one occasion, all calls to that number were personal. ID-49 was
based upon an unsupported assumption that Respondent placed all the calls, when in fact, the
SCSD telephone line was a general line and other SCSD staff besides the Respondent
became involved with the PULSE program
Having determined that Respondent has violated the Ethics Act, we shall now
determine the appropriate disposition of this case.
Section 407(13)/1107(13) of the Ethics Act empowers this Commission to impose
restitution in instances where a public official /public employee has obtained a financial gain in
violation of the Ethics Act. Section 9(c)/1109(c) provides that in addition to any other penalty
provided by law, a person who obtains financial gain by violating any provision of the Ethics
Act may be required to pay a treble penalty.
The Investigative Division requests that this Commission impose an order for both
restitution and a treble penalty in this case. (Closing Statement and Brief of the Investigative
Division at 75).
Respondent asserts that there should be no monetary aspect to the disposition of this
case. (Respondent's Post - Hearing Brief at 104 -106). Respondent asserts that he was
surprised and prejudiced by differences in amounts alleged in the Investigative Complaint and
those presented by the Investigative Division at the hearing. (Id.).
We determine that restitution is warranted in this case, not only as to the $27,900.00
that Respondent received from Kings Bridge Incorporated as the result of bringing the PULSE
Program to the SCSD but also as to the $279.84 of employee compensation Respondent
received from the Camp Hill School District for November 7, 1999, when he provided private,
compensated consulting services for Cabell County Schools without taking leave from the
Camp Hill School District. We shall not impose a treble penalty.
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 175
We reject Respondent's argument as to surprise /prejudice. First, Respondent had
ample time to review the amounts presented during the Investigative Division's case -in -chief
during the month between the first and second sets of hearing dates. Second, based upon
our disposition of this case, the only amounts that are significant anyway are the amounts for
which we are ordering restitution, specifically:
(1) the $27,900.00 that Respondent received from Kings Bridge Incorporated as
the result of bringing the PULSE Program to the SCSD, which amount does not
differ from the amount averred in the Investigative Complaint (Investigative
Complaint, paragraph 157); and
(2) the $279.84 of employee compensation that Respondent received from the
Camp Hill School District for November 7, 1999, when he was providing private,
compensated consulting services for Cabell County Schools without taking
leave from the Camp Hill School District, an amount calculated using an hourly
rate that differs slightly from that averred in paragraphs 216(d) and 217(b) of
the Investigative Complaint, but that is appropriately used given Respondent's
denial of the aforesaid paragraphs of the Investigative Complaint. (See,
Response of Michael Steven Wilcox to the Findings in the Investigative
Complaint, at paragraphs 216(d) and 217(b)).
All due process requirements were met in this case.
Based upon the above, full restitution to the respective school districts is appropriate.
Accordingly, Respondent is directed to make payment of restitution to the SCSD through this
Commission in the amount of $27,900.00 within 30 days of the date of mailing of this Order.
Respondent is further directed to make payment of restitution to the Camp Hill School District
through this Commission in the amount of $279.84 within 30 days of the date of mailing of this
Order.
If Respondent has not already done so, he is directed to file, within 30 days of the date
of mailing of this Order, Statements of Financial Interests for calendar years 1997 and 1998
with the Camp Hill School District providing complete disclosure as required by Section 1105
of the Ethics Act. The original of each such Statement of Financial Interests form is to be filed
with the school district, with one copy sent to the Administrative Division of this Commission
for compliance verification purposes.
If Respondent has not already done so, he is directed to file, within 30 days of the date
of mailing of this Order, amended Statements of Financial Interests for calendar years 1999
and 2000 with the SCSD providing complete disclosure as required by Section 1105 of the
Ethics Act and this Order, and specifically with regard to sources of income. The original of
each such amended Statement of Financial Interests form is to be filed with the school district,
with one copy sent to the Administrative Division of this Commission for compliance
verification purposes.
This matter shall be referred to the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General for review
as to whether a criminal prosecution should be instituted against Respondent, and to the
Pennsylvania Department of Education for review as to any action it may deem appropriate.
IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
1. Michael Steven Wilcox ( "Wilcox "), as a Superintendent of the Southern Columbia
School District ( "SCSD "), and as Director of Educational Services for the Camp Hill
School District, was at all times relevant to these proceedings a public official /public
employee subject to the provisions of the Ethics Act.
Wilcox 01- 062 -C2
Page 176
2. Wilcox violated Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he used the authority of
his public position for a private pecuniary benefit, including but not limited to
participating in actions of the SCSD to award a contract to provide services for "at risk"
students of SCSD to King's Bridge, Inc., a business with which he was associated and
with which he had business dealings.
3. Wilcox violated Section 3(f)/1103( of the Ethics Act when contracts valued in excess
of $500.00 were awarded by SCSD to King's Bridge, Inc., a business with which
Wilcox was associated, and to Mainstream Counseling, Inc. which subcontracted the
work to Kings Bridge, Inc., without an open and public process.
4. Wilcox did not violate Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act as to the allegation that he
was compensated by SCSD while simultaneously being paid to perform services for
Kings Bridge, Inc., based upon a lack of clear and convincing proof.
5. Wilcox did not violate Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act as to the allegation that he
retained for his personal use a laptop computer that was property of the SCSD, based
upon a lack of clear and convincing proof.
6. Wilcox violated Section 5(b)(5)/1105 (b)(5 ) of the Ethics Act when he failed to disclose
on Statements of Financial Interests filed for the 2000 calendar year income in excess
of $1,300 received from Kings Bridge, Inc.
7. Wilcox violated Section 4(a)/1104(a) of the Ethics Act when he failed to file Statements
of Financial Interests for the 1997 and 1998 calendar years with the Camp Hill School
District.
8. Wilcox did not violate Section 5(b)(8)/1105(b)(8) of the Ethics Act as to the allegation
that he failed to disclose his office, directorship or employment in Kings Bridge Inc., a
business entity on Statements of Financial Interests filed for the 1999 and 2000
calendar years as to the Camp Hill School District in that Wilcox was not required to file
forms with the Camp Hill School District for those calendar years.
9. Wilcox did not violate Section 5(b)(8)/1105(b)(8) of the Ethics Act regarding the
allegation that as Director of Educational Services for the Camp Hill School District he
failed to disclose on Statements of Financial Interests for the 1999, 2000 and 2001
calendar years his office, directorship or employment in Tri- Chamber Foundation, an
entity where he served as secretary, because Wilcox was not required to file forms with
the Camp Hill School District for those calendar years.
10. Wilcox violated Section 5(b)(5)/1105(b)(5) of the Ethics Act when he failed to disclose
Cabell County School District as a source of income in excess of $1,300 on
Statements of Financial Interests filed for the 1999 and 2000 calendar years.
11. There was no separate violation of Section 5(a)/1105(a) of the Ethics Act by Wilcox in
that such was subsumed and necessarily included within his violations as to other
specific Sections of the Ethics Act pertaining to Statements of Financial Interests.
12. Wilcox violated Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he utilized SCSD and
Camp Hill School District equipment, facilities, and time (November 7, 1997, which he
spent doing consulting work at Cabell County Schools without taking leave from Camp
Hill School District) for his private business interests, including but not limited to Kings
Bridge, Inc.
13. Restitution is warranted in this case.
In Re: Michael Steven Wilcox
ORDER NO. 1306
File Docket: 01-062-C2
Date Decided: 12/01/03
Date Mailed: 12/15/03
1. Michael Steven Wilcox ("Wilcox'), a public official /public employee in his capacityasa
Superintendent of the Southern Columbia School District ( "SCSD "), and as Director of
Educational Services for the Camp Hill School District, violated Section 3(a)/1103(a) of
the Ethics Act when he used the authority of his public position for a private pecuniary
benefit, including but not limited to participating in actions of the SCSD to award a
contract to provide services for "at risk" students of SCSD to King's Bridge, Inc., a
business with which he was associated and with which he had business dealings.
2. Wilcox violated Section 3(f)/1103(f) of the Ethics Act when contracts valued in excess
of $500.00 were awarded by SCSD to King's Bridge, Inc., a business with which
Wilcox was associated, and to Mainstream Counseling, Inc. which subcontracted the
work to Kings Bridge, Inc., without an open and public process.
3. Wilcox did not violate Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act as to the allegation that he
was compensated by SCSD while simultaneously being paid to perform services for
Kings Bridge, Inc., based upon a lack of clear and convincing proof.
4. Wilcox did not violate Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act as to the allegation that he
retained for his personal use a laptop computer that was property of the SCSD, based
upon a lack of clear and convincing proof.
5. Wilcox violated Section 5(b)(5)/1105 (b)(5 ) of the Ethics Act when he failed to disclose
on Statements of Financial Interests filed for the 2000 calendar year income in excess
of $1,300 received from Kings Bridge, Inc.
6. Wilcox violated Section 4(a)/1104(a) of the Ethics Act when he failed to file Statements
of Financial Interests for the 1997 and 1998 calendar years with the Camp Hill School
District.
7. Wilcox did not violate Section 5(b)(8)/1105(b)(8) of the Ethics Act as to the allegation
that he failed to disclose his office, directorship or employment in Kings Bridge Inc., a
business entity on Statements of Financial Interests filed for the 1999 and 2000
calendar years as to the Camp Hill School District in that Wilcox was not required to file
forms with the Camp Hill School District for those calendar years.
8. Wilcox did not violate Section 5(b)(8)/1105(b)(8) of the Ethics Act regarding the
allegation that as Director of Educational Services for the Camp Hill School District he
failed to disclose on Statements of Financial Interests for the 1999, 2000 and 2001
calendar years his office, directorship or employment in Tri- Chamber Foundation, an
entity where he served as secretary, because Wilcox was not required to file forms with
the Camp Hill School District for those calendar years.
9. Wilcox violated Section 5(b)(5)/1105(b)(5) of the Ethics Act when he failed to disclose
Cabell County School District as a source of income in excess of $1,300 on
Statements of Financial Interests filed for the 1999 and 2000 calendar years.
10. There was no separate violation of Section 5(a)/1105(a) of the Ethics Act by Wilcox in
that such was subsumed and necessarily included within his violations as to other
specific Sections of the Ethics Act pertaining to Statements of Financial Interests.
11. Wilcox violated Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he utilized SCSD and
Camp Hill School District equipment, facilities, and time (November 7, 1997, which he
spent doing consulting work at Cabell County Schools without taking leave from Camp
Hill School District) for his private business interests, including but not limited to Kings
Bridge, Inc.
12. Wilcox is directed to make payment of restitution to the SCSD through this
Commission in the amount of $27,900.00 within 30 days of the date of mailing of this
Order.
13. Wilcox is directed to make payment of restitution to the Camp Hill School District
through this Commission in the amount of $279.84 within 30 days of the date of
mailing of this Order.
14. If Wilcox has not already done so, he is directed to file, within 30 days of the date of
mailing of this Order, Statements of Financial Interests for calendar years 1997 and
1998 with the Camp Hill School District providing complete disclosure as required by
Section 1105 of the Ethics Act. The original of each such Statement of Financial
Interests form is to be filed with the school district, with one copy sent to the
Administrative Division of this Commission for compliance verification purposes.
15. If Wilcox has not already done so, he is directed to file, within 30 days of the date of
mailing of this Order, amended Statements of Financial Interests for calendar years
1999 and 2000 with the SCSD providing complete disclosure as required by Section
1105 of the Ethics Act and this Order, and specifically with regard to sources of
income. The original of each such amended Statement of Financial Interests form is to
be filed with the school district, with one copy sent to the Administrative Division of this
Commission for compliance verification purposes.
16. This matter shall be referred to the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General for review
as to whether a criminal prosecution should be instituted against Wilcox, and to the
Pennsylvania Department of Education for review as to any action it may deem
appropriate.
BY THE COMMISSION,
Louis W. Fryman, Chair