Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1312 GarrisIn Re: Ralph Garris File Docket: X -ref: Date Decided: Date Mailed: Before: Louis W. Fryman, Chair John J. Bolger, Vice Chair Daneen E. Reese Donald M. McCurdy Michael Healey Paul M. Henry Raquel K. Bergen 03 -012 Order No. 1312 March 11, 2004 March 26, 2004 This is a final adjudication of the State Ethics Commission. Procedurally, the Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission conducted an investigation regarding a possible violation of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act, Act 9 of 1989, P.L. 26, 65 P.S. §§ 401 et seq., as codified by Act 93 of 1998, Chapter 11, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq., by the above -named Respondent. At the commencement of its investigation, the Investigative Division served upon Respondent written notice of the specific allegation(s). Upon completion of its investigation the Investigative Division issued and served upon Respondent a Findings Report identified as an "Investigative Complaint." An Answer was filed and a hearing was waived. The record is complete. A Consent Agreement and Stipulation of Findings were submitted by the parties to the Commission for consideration. The Stipulation of Findings is quoted as the Findings in this Order. The Consent Agreement was subsequently approved. Effective December 15, 1998, Act 9 of 1989 was repealed and replaced by Chapter 11 of Act 93 of 1998, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq., which essentially repeats Act 9 of 1989 and provides for the completion of pending matters under Act 93 of 1998. This adjudication of the State Ethics Commission is issued under Act 93 of 1998 and will be made available as a public document thirty days after the mailing date noted above. However, reconsideration may be requested. Any reconsideration request must be received at this Commission within thirty days of the mailing date and must include a detailed explanation of the reasons as to why reconsideration should be granted in conformity with 51 Pa. Code § 21.29(b). A request for reconsideration will not affect the finality of this adjudication but will defer its public release pending action on the request by the Commission. The files in this case will remain confidential in accordance with Chapter 11 of Act 93 of 1998. Any person who violates confidentiality of the Ethics Act is guilty of a misdemeanor subject to a fine of not more than $1,000 or imprisonment for not more than one year. Confidentiality does not preclude discussing this case with an attorney at law. Garris 03 -012 Page 2 I. ALLEGATION: That Ralph Garris, a (public official /public employee), in his capacity as a supervisor of Sadsbury Township, Chester County, violated Sections 1103(a) and 1103(f) provisions of the State Ethics Act (Act 93 of 1998) 65 Pa.C.S. § §1103(a), (f) when he used the authority of his office for the private pecuniary gain of himself and /or a business with which he or members of his immediate family are associated, included but not limited by participating in actions of the township to direct the repair of township vehicles at Garris Garage, a business owned and operated by a member of his immediate family; and when he participated in actions of the board of supervisors to approve payments to Garris Garage, when repair work to township vehicles was awarded to Garris Garage without an open and public process; when he participated in board actions resulting in the hiring of his daughter, for the position of township secretary; and when he participated in approving payments and pay increases for his daughter. II. FINDINGS: 1. Ralph Garris has been a member of the Sadsbury Township, Chester County, Board of Supervisors since January of 1982. a. Garris has served as Chairman of the Board of Supervisors since 2001. b. Garris has served as Sadsbury Township Police Department Liaison since 1997. 2. As an appointed official of the township, Garris was responsible to oversee the road department on a periodic basis. 3. Garris is also a liaison to the police department pursuant to which he functions as a "go- between" between the township and the police department. Decisions relating to police matters require the input of the full board of supervisors. a. Police Chief Morris Groce generally reports to Garris on matters relating to expenses, including police vehicle repairs. 4. In 1962, Garris opened a general automotive repair shop in Parkesburg, Chester County, d /b /a "Garris Garage" a. Garris Garage is located at 2050 Valley Road, Parkesburg, Chester County, Sadsbury Township, Pennsylvania. b. Garris applied for and received an "Official Inspection Station" license from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Bureau of Traffic Safety Inspection Division issued on September 25, 1962. 5. Garris owned and operated "Garris Garage" until May 11, 1992 a. Garris transferred ownership of the garage to his son, Ralph Garris III. 6. Garris will, at times, conduct vehicle inspections and aid his son when necessary, but has no financial interest in the day -to -day workings of the garage. a. Garris does not receive a salary or compensation for performing these work duties. 7. Garris still owns the building and property where Ralph Garris III operates Garris Garage. Garris 03 -012 Page 3 a. Garris' son does not generally pay rent for use of the building but has on occasion made $500.00 rental payments to his father. 1. Rental payments are only made when Garris's son earns substantial positive income in a month's time. 8. Prior to Ralph Garris being elected Supervisor of Sadsbury Township in 1982, Garris Garage had performed general vehicle repair work for Sadsbury Township. a. That practice has continued since 1982. 9. Over the past five years, Garris Garage has performed vehicle maintenance on township equipment from both the road and police departments. 10. There is no written township policy or procedure which directs how routine maintenance and repairs are to be handled. 11. Garris Garage is not the only automotive repair business that has been utilized by Sadsbury Township for routine maintenance of township vehicles. a. Garris Garage does not perform any maintenance work for other fleet vehicles. 12. Sadsbury Township Street Department vehicles are taken to Garris Garage, as well as to other repair shops in the area, for routine and emergency repair work. a. Routine services included annual inspections, oil changes, brake services and other minor repairs. 13. Douglas McGuigan is Street Department Foreman for Sadsbury Township. As Street Department Foreman, McGuigan may on occasion seek input from Garris when a Street Department vehicle is in need of repair; however, McGuigan does not report to Garris when vehicles are in need of routine maintenance such as oil changes or inspections. a. McGuigan sends the vehicles to Garris Garage as well as to other repair shops in the area. b. Garris does not direct McGuigan to send his vehicles to any particular repair shop, including Garris' garage. Garris suggested Garris Garage as well as a number of repair shops in the area as a possibility when township vehicles need routine maintenance or repair. 1. From time to time, McGuigan will drop vehicles off at Garris Garage upon appointment. 14. Morris Groce is Police Chief of Sadsbury Township. From time to time, Groce will consult with Garris when a police vehicle is in need of maintenance or repair. However, decisions as to where vehicles should go for repair work are the ultimate decision of the police chief. a. Groce does not need permission from Garris or the Sadsbury Township Board of Supervisors before scheduling maintenance and inspections for police department vehicles. b. While Garris may suggest to Groce that he take his vehicles to Garris Garage, he also often recommends that Groce take the vehicles to other repair shops or Garris 03 -012 Page 4 garages in the area. c. Groce or his subordinate police officers will, from time to time, drop vehicles off at Garris Garage after an appointment is made at Garris Garage. 15. Garris Garage invoices Sadsbury Township for maintenance repairs to township vehicles, but not always on a monthly basis. 16. As a supervisor, he only sees requests for lump sum payments to be made to Garris Garage, which appear as a line item on the board of supervisors agenda. 17. Garris Garage invoices Sadsbury Township on a periodic basis for vehicle repairs and maintenance. 18. Sadsbury Township Supervisors are provided with line items reflecting payments to be made as they appear on the agenda. a. Separate bill lists for Garris Garage began in 1983 after Ralph Garris took office. 1. This practice was invoked after former Sadsbury Township Solicitor Ronald Agulnick recommended this be done to alleviate a possible conflict of interest with Ralph Garris and Garris Garage. 19. Line items reflecting payments to be made, rather than bill lists or invoices, are reviewed by the supervisors and approved during board of supervisor meetings. 20. Garris, along with other supervisors, has signature authority on all township accounts, although two signatures are required for each township check. 21. Garris has abstained from voting on issues relating to the approval of line items involving Garris Garage. 22. Garris has performed the ministerial task of co- signing checks which reflect payments already approved by the other supervisors to Garris Garage and, thus, from time to time, his signature has appeared on checks which identify Garris Garage as payee. The following findings relate to the allegation that Garris used his position for the benefit of Lisa Myers, Sadsbury Township SecretarylTreasurer 23. Lisa Myers, Sadsbury Township Secretary/Treasurer, is the daughter of Supervisor Ralph Garris. a. Lisa Myers has been employed by Sadsbury Township since June 1997. 24. Lisa Myers was hired by a vote of council on June 2, 1997, as a temporary employee in the township office and was paid at a rate of $7.00 per hour. a. Garris was a member of the board and participated in the board action approving the hiring. b. This action took place more than five (5) years prior to the initiation of the State Ethics Commission's proceedings in the instant matter. 25. Myers continued to work for the township on a temporary basis until January 5, 1998. a. The motion was unanimously approved. Garris 03 -012 Page 5 b. This action took place more than five (5) years prior to the initiation of the State Ethics Commission's proceedings in the instant matter. 26. During the meeting of March 3, 1998, Lisa Myers was appointed as a full time secretary to the board of supervisors of Sadsbury Township. a. Garris abstained from the vote to appoint Myers as township secretary. b. On March 16, 1998, Myers' wage was approved by the board of supervisors at $12.00 per hour. 1. Garris abstained from the vote to set the compensation. 27. During reorganization meetings of the board of supervisors, Lisa Myers was reappointed township secretary during the period from 1999 through 2003. a. The minutes reflect that in 1999, Garris seconded a motion on her reappointment. b. The minutes reflect that in 2000, Garris voted to reappoint her. c. The minutes reflect that in 2001, Garris seconded a motion and voted on her reappointment. 28. During the reorganization meeting of January 7 2002, Lisa Myers was appointed as township secretary /treasurer. a. Garris abstained from the motion and vote to appoint Lisa Myers as township secretary /treasurer. 29. Thereafter, an outside auditor hired by the township conducted a survey wherein he determined appropriate salaries to be paid to township employees, including Lisa Myers. 30. Garris then voted on the budgets in January 1999, January 2000 and January 2001 and therein approved all employee wages (not just Lisa Myers') as part of an overall budget package. 31. On December 26 2001, Sadsbury Township Solicitor Vincent Pompo forwarded a letter to Ralph Garris, as chairman of the board of supervisors, and outlined a new draft agenda format for the board's monthly meetings. a. The agenda did not address issues regarding salary; however, where salaries were mentioned at a board meeting, information regarding those salaries was recorded in the minutes of the board. b. The agenda prepared by Pompo provided that employee salaries be posted at the township building. 32. Both before and after December 2001 when the agenda format changed, salaries for township employees were publicly approved as part of the overall township budget. This is still the current practice. 33. In December 2001, Myers' salary was increased to $20.00 per hour which was the amount set by the township's outside auditor; while such salary increase was not specifically made part of the agenda, the salary was posted at the township's offices Budget Year Approval Date Wages Allocated Action by Garris 1998 December 31 1997 $10,532.00 Motion to Adopt 1999 December 31 1998 $12,600.00 Seconded to Adopt 2000 December 31 1999 $17,000.00 Seconded to Adopt 2001 December 29 2000 $20,000.00 Seconded by Adopt 2002 December 31 2001 $41,600.00 Seconded by Adopt 2003 December 31 2002 $47,000.00 Motion to Adopt Garris 03 -012 Page 6 and a vote on the budget, of which the salary was included, was recorded. 34. On January 6, 2003, Lisa Myers was reappointed as township secretary /treasurer. a. Garris abstained from voting on the issue of whether or not his daughter should be reappointed. 35. There was a formal vote of the budget within which her salary was contained which, at that time, was approximately $22.00 per hour. a. Once again, Lisa Myers' salary was posted in the township's offices and was available for the public to view. b. Supervisors Douglas Doratt, Terry Franciscus, and Respondent Ralph Garris recall setting salaries based upon a "salary sheet" showing wage increases provided to them by township outside auditor Joseph Drozd. 36. A budget work session for the township occurred on or about November 12, 2002, to discuss the 2003 general fund budget for Sadsbury Township. a. Garris participated in the work session. b. Auditor Joseph Drozd had provided the supervisors with a salary survey that provided a recommendation for an increase in wages for township employees, including Lisa Myers. 1. Drozd reported back to the township that he had conducted a survey of other townships and that it was upon the information he gathered that he based his recommendations to Sadsbury as to salary increases. c. Garris and the other supervisors participated in a vote on the overall township budget which contained the various increases in salary for various township employees, including Lisa Myers. 1. No formal vote was taken by the supervisors specifically with regard to employees' wages. 37. The salaries and wages for the secretary and treasurer positions are a line item on the budgets for each calendar year. 38. As supervisor, Garris votes on adopting the budgets for each calendar year, which includes compensation for the secretary /treasurer position. 39. The following chart represents budget dates, allocated amounts and actions by Garris in the budget approval process for the secretary /treasurer position: Garris 03 -012 Page 7 40. Payroll is approved by the board at the regular monthly supervisors meeting. a. Township employees are paid once monthly. b. A separate line item sheet is attached to all bill lists, which delineates total payroll payouts for any given month. 1. All three supervisors sign the line item sheet indicating approval of the payroll. c. When issuing paychecks at least two (2) handwritten signatures of board members are required on a check. 1. Myers has signature authority on paychecks. 41. Garris has participated in actions of the board to approve payroll, which includes compensation to Lisa Myers, but only to the extent that he has participated in voting on the budget generally. 42. W -2 Wage and Tax Statements and township records confirms total annual compensation for Lisa Myers as township secretary /treasurer as follows: Tax Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 (through 8/03) Total through 2003 Wages Earned $ 11,982.00 $ 15,268.50 $ 19,337.10 $ 23,275.84 $ 43,514.80 $ 32,385.76 $ 145,764.00 III. DISCUSSION: At all times relevant to this matter, the Respondent, Ralph Garris, hereinafter Garris, has been a public official subject to the provisions of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Law, Act 9 of 1989, Pamphlet Law 26, 65 P.S. § 401, et seq., as codified by the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act, Act 93 of 1998, Chapter 11, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq., which Acts are referred to herein as the "Ethics Act." The allegations are that Garris, as a Sadsbury Township Supervisor, violated Sections 3(a)/1103(a) and 3(f)/1103(f) of the Ethics Act when he used the authority of office as to the repair of township vehicles at Garris Garage, a business owned and operated by his son, with the repair work being in excess of $500 and not awarded through an open and public process; participated in board actions resulting in the hiring of his daughter for the position of township secretary; and approved payments and pay increases for his daughter. Pursuant to Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act, a public official /public employee is prohibited from engaging in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest. The term "conflict of interest" is defined under Act 9 of 1989/Act 93 of 1998 as follows: Section 2/1102. Definitions "Conflict" or "conflict of interest." Use by a public official or public employee of the authority of his office or employment or any confidential information received through his holding public Garris 03 -012 Page 8 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. "Conflict" or "conflict of interest" does not include an action having a de minimis economic impact or which affects to the same degree a class consisting of the general public or a subclass consisting of an industry, occupation or other group which includes the public official or public employee, a member of his immediate family or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. 65 P.S. § 402/65 Pa.C.S. § 1102. Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act prohibits a public official /public employee from using the authority of public office /employment or confidential information received by holding such a public position for the private pecuniary benefit of the public official /public employee himself, any member of his immediate family, or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. Section 3(f)/1103(f) of the Ethics Act provides: Section 3/1103. Restricted activities (f) 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. 65 P.S. § 403(f)/65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(f). 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. As noted above, the parties have submitted a Consent Agreement and Stipulation of Findings. The parties' Stipulated Findings are reproduced above as the Findings of this Commission. We shall now summarize the relevant facts as contained therein. Garris has served as a township supervisor since January of 1982 and as liaison to the police department since 1997. In the latter position, Garris acts as a liaison between the police Garris 03 -012 Page 9 department and the board concerning police matters such as expenses and police vehicle repairs. In a private capacity, Garris owned the Garris Garage, an automobile repair shop, from 1962 until May of 1992 when he transferred ownership to his son, Ralph Garris, III. As to the Garris Garage, Garris still owns the buildings and property but receives no salary or compensation for performing work duties when he helps his son. Although Garris' son does not pay rent to Garris, Ralph will make a $500 rental payment when he has substantial monthly income. The Garris Garage began general vehicle repair work for the township prior to Garris' service as a supervisor. For over the last five years, the Garris Garage has performed vehicle maintenance on both township road and police department vehicles even though there is no written township policy as to how routine maintenance and repairs are to be handled. Other automotive repair businesses also do maintenance and repair work on township vehicles. Although the street department foreman occasionally seeks input from Garris regarding a street vehicle in need of repair, the foreman does not report to Garris regarding the routine maintenance of the vehicles which are sent to the Garris Garage and other shops in the area. In this regard, Garris has not directed the foreman to send vehicles to any particular shop. Likewise, the police chief will on occasion consult with Garris regarding a repair or maintenance of a police vehicle but the police chief makes the decision as to where the vehicle will be sent for repairs. Garris Garage periodically invoices the township for maintenance and repairs of township vehicles which is not always done on a monthly basis. Garris as a supervisor only has before him the lump sum payment approvals to the Garris Garage which appear as a line item on the agenda for the board of supervisors. Similarly, the supervisors are provided with line items reflecting payments. Garris has abstained from voting on issues relating to the approval of line items involving Garris Garage but has co- signed checks which require two signatures for payment. Separate and apart from the above, Garris' daughter, Lisa Myers, has been employed by the township since June of 1997. Myers was hired as a temporary employee by a vote of council on June 2, 1997, in which Garris participated. That action took place more than five years prior to the initiation of the current investigation. Myers continued to work for the township on a temporary basis until January 5, 1998 when she apparently, through unanimous board action, was again approved for employment. However, such action also took place five years prior to the initiation of the instant investigation. On March 3, 1998, Myers was appointed as full -time secretary to the board. As to that action Garris abstained from participation. Likewise, Garris abstained from action on March 16, 1998, when the board set Myers' wage at $12.00 per hour. As to the reorganizational meetings from 1999 to 2003, Garris seconded a motion for the reappointment of his daughter in 1999, voted to reappoint her in 2000, and seconded the motion and voted for her reappointment in 2001. However, at the reorganizational meeting of January 7, 2002, Garris abstained as to the appointment of Myers for township secretary /treasurer. Garris voted for budgets in January of 1999 through 2001 which included approval of all employee wages including Myers as part of the overall budget. Garris abstained at the reorganizational meeting of January 6, 2003, as to Myers reappointment as township secretary /treasurer. At a budget work session in November of 2002, there were discussions about the 2003 general fund budget which included employees' salaries. A township auditor provided the supervisors with a salary survey and recommendation for an increase in wages for all township employees. Garris and the other supervisors participated in the vote on the overall budget which contained a line item for the various employee increases in the budget for the calendar year. Fact Finding 39 reflects the actions taken by Garris as to the budgets for 1998 through 2003 which had a line item for employee compensation including the secretary /treasurer. Lastly, Garris participated in actions of the board to approve township Garris 03 -012 Page 10 employee payroll including Myers which was in the form of a line item sheet that delineated the total payroll payout for a given month. Having highlighted the Stipulated Findings and issues before us, we shall now apply the Ethics Act to determine the proper disposition of this case. The parties' Consent Agreement sets forth a proposed resolution of the allegations: a. Garris unintentionally violated Section 3(a)/1103(a), of the Ethics Act when he participated in various actions of the township regarding the repair of township vehicles at Garris Garage, a business owned and operated by a member of his immediate family and the payment by the township for such services. b. Garris technically violated Section 3(f)/1103(f), of the Ethics Act when he participated in the award of a contract for repair work to township vehicles to Garris Garage, a business owned and operated by a member of his immediate family, without an open and public process. c. Garris did not violate Section 3(a)/1103(a), of the Ethics Act regarding the initial hiring of Garris' daughter in 1997 and her 1998 employment as assistant township secretary as both actions occurred more than five (5) years prior to the initiation of the instant proceedings. d. Garris unintentionally violated Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he participated in various actions of the board of supervisors, from March 1998 through January 2002, regarding the employment of his daughter by the township, specifically relating to his daughter's salary, the approval of pay increments for his daughter and the fixing of the budget. e. Garris agrees to make payment in the amount of $800 in settlement of this matter payable to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and forwarded to the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the final adjudication in this matter. In applying Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act as to that portion of the allegation concerning the repairs and maintenance of township vehicles at the Garris Garage, there were uses of authority of office on the part of Garris. But for the fact that Garris was a supervisor, he would not have been in a position to participate in the board of supervisors approval and payment process as to line items for Garris Garage. Garris also co- signed some checks payable to Garris Garage for repairs and maintenance of township vehicles. All such actions were uses of authority of office. See, Juliante, Order 809. Such uses of authority of office resulted in private pecuniary benefits consisting of the profits that Garris Garage received in performing repair and maintenance services on township vehicles. Lastly, the private pecuniary benefits inured to Garris Garage, a business with which a member of Garris' immediate family is associated in that Garris' son is the owner of the garage. Accordingly, Garris unintentionally violated Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he participated in various township actions regarding the repairs and maintenance of township vehicles at Garris Garage, a business with which a member Garris' immediate family is associated. Burchfield, Order 1207. Turning to Section 3(f)/1103(f) of the Ethics Act, this provision provides that a public official, spouse, or child may contract with his /her governmental body but if the contract is $500 or more, it must be awarded through an open and public process. There were various contracts between Garris Garage and the township for repairs and maintenance of township vehicles. In addition, the contracts were between Garris' son as owner of the garage and the township. Although there are no specifics as to the amounts of the contracts, we will accept the parties' stipulation and thereby state that such contracts were over $500 and awarded Garris 03 -012 Page 11 without an open and public process. On that basis, we find that Garris technically violated Section 3(f)/1103(f) of the Ethics Act regarding contracts for repairs and maintenance of township vehicles between the township and Garris Garage, a business with which Garris' son is associated where the contracts were in excess of $500 and not awarded through an open and public process. Rice, Order 1262. Turning to the second allegation concerning the employment of Garris' daughter as township secretary and actions as to her salary and pay increments, the stipulated facts reflect that the actual hiring of Garris' daughter, Lisa Myers, as a temporary employee occurred in June of 1997. Since that action took place more than five years prior to the initiation of the Commission's proceedings, the statute of limitations has run. Likewise, Garris' action and participation as to the approval of his daughter in January of 1998 was also beyond the five year period of the statute of limitations set forth in the Ethics Act and Regulations. §811108. Investigations by commission (m) Limitation of time. - -The commission may conduct an investigation within five years after the alleged occurrence of any violation of this chapter. 65 P.S. § 408(m)/65 Pa.C.S. §1108(m). §11.3. Statute of limitations. The Commission may investigate a violation of the act within 5 years of its occurrence. The occurrence transpires when an act is complete or requires no further action. This title does not apply to violations committed p rior to the effective date of the act, and causes of action initiated for the violations shall be governed by the prior law and title, which are continued in effect for that purpose as if this title were not in force. For the purposes of this title, a violation was committed prior to the effective date of the act if any elements of the violation occurred prior thereto. 51 Pa. Code §11.3. Based upon Section 8(m)/1108(m ) of the Ethics Act and Regulation 11.3, we find that Garris did not violate Section 3(a)/110 (a) of the Ethics Act regarding the hiring of his daughter in 1997 and her employment in January of 1998 in that such actions occurred beyond the statute of limitations. Regarding Garris' action post -March 1998 as to his daughter's salary, pay increments and the budget concerning employee salaries, there were uses of authority of office on the part of Garris. Garris participated in the reappointments of his daughter to township secretary at the reorganizational meetings of 1999 through 2001, but not for 2002 and 2003. In addition, Garris participated in budget approvals that contained line items for employee wages. Garris also participated as to meetings of the board which contained line items for approval of payroll. Lastly, Garris co- signed some checks which were paychecks for employee salaries. All such actions were uses of authority of office. See, Juliante, supra. Such uses of authority of office resulted in private pecuniary benefits consisting of the continuation of his daughter in township employment, the setting of her salary or wage increases that were in the budget and payroll approval. Such private pecuniary benefits inured to his daughter who is a member of his immediate family as that term is defined under the Ethics Act. Accordingly, Garris unintentionally violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he participated in actions of the board regarding the post -March 1998 employment of his daughter, the setting of her salary and the approval of pay increments for township employees which included his daughter. Allen, Order 1265. Garris 03 -012 Page 12 We determine that the Consent Agreement submitted by the parties sets forth the proper disposition for this case, based upon our review as reflected in the above analysis and the totality of the facts and circumstances. Accordingly, Garris is directed to make payment of $800 to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania through this Commission within 30 days of the issuance of this order. Compliance with the foregoing will result in the closing of this case with no further action by this Commission. Noncompliance will result in the institution of an order enforcement action. IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: 1. Garris, as a Sadsbury Township Supervisor, is a public official subject to the provisions of Act 9 of 1989 as codified by Act 93 of 1998. 2. Garris unintentionally violated Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he participated in various township actions regarding the repairs and maintenance of township vehicles at the Garris Garage, a business with which a member Garris' immediate family is associated. 3. Garris technically violated Section 3(f)/1103(f) of the Ethics Act regarding contracts for repairs and maintenance of township vehicles between the township and Garris Garage, a business with which Garris' son is associated, where the contracts were in excess of $500 and not awarded through an open and public process. 4. Garris did not violate Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act regarding the hiring of his daughter in 1997and her employment in January of 1998 in that such actions occurred beyond the statute of limitations. 5. Garris unintentionally violated Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he participated in actions of the board regarding the post -March 1998 employment of his daughter, the setting of her salary and the approval of pay increments for township employees including his daughter. In Re: Ralph Garris ORDER NO. 1312 File Docket: 03 -012 Date Decided: March 11, 2004 Date Mailed: March 26, 2004 1. Garris, as a Sadsbury Township Supervisor, unintentionally violated Section 3(a)/ 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he participated in various township actions regarding the repairs and maintenance of township vehicles at the Garris Garage, a business with which a member Garris' immediate family is associated. 2. Garris technically violated Section 3(f)/1103(f) of the Ethics Act regarding contracts for repairs and maintenance of township vehicles between the township and Garris Garage, a business with which Garris' son is associated, where the contracts were in excess of $500 and not awarded through an open and public process. 3. Garris did not violate Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act regarding the hiring of his daughter in 1997and her employment in January of 1998 in that such actions occurred beyond the statute of limitations. 4. Garris unintentionally violated Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he participated in actions of the board regarding the post -March 1998 employment of his daughter, the setting of her salary and the approval of pay increments for township employees including his daughter. 5. Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Garris is directed to make payment of $800 to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania through this Commission within 30 days of the issuance of this order a. Compliance with the foregoing will result in the closing of this case with no further action by this Commission. b. Non - compliance will result in the institution of an order enforcement action. BY THE COMMISSION, Louis W. Fryman, Chair