HomeMy WebLinkAbout1315 MaggiIn Re: Larry Maggi
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 -032
Order No. 1315
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Effective December 15, 1998, Act 9 of 1989 was repealed and replaced by Chapter 11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.
Maqqi 03 -032
Page 2
I. ALLEGATION:
That Larry Maggi, a (public official/ public employee) in his capacity as Sheriff of
Washington County violated Sections 1103(a) and 1103(b) of the Ethics Act (Act 93 of 1998)
including but not limited to using employees and facilities of his office, including telephones to
solicit support for his candidacy for the Office of County Commissioner.
II. FINDINGS:
1. Larry Maggi has served as the Sheriff for Washington County since January 1998.
a. Maggi was elected to a second term as sheriff in the November 2001 general
election.
2. Maggi chose to run for the office of Washington County Commissioner in the 2003
Primary Election.
a. Maggi opted to run a joint campaign with Bracken Burns, an incumbent county
commissioner regarding the 2003 election.
3. J. Bracken Burns, Sr. has served as a Commissioner for Washington County since
January 2, 1996.
a. Burns served as the Vice - Chairman of the Board of Commissioners from May
3, 1997 through September 3, 1998.
b. Burns served as the Chairman of the Board of Commissioners from September
4, 1998 through December 31, 1999.
4. Burns and Maggi established a joint campaign committee for the 2003 election.
a. The Political Committee Registration Statement was filed with the Washington
County Election Office on March 17, 2003.
b. The joint committee was titled "Burns -Maggi for Commissioners Committee."
5. Although a joint campaign committee was formed, both Burns and Maggi maintained
separate, individual campaign committees.
a. Burns' committee was titled, "Bracken Burns for Commissioner Committee."
b. Maggi's committee was titled, "Larry Maggi Election Committee."
6. Burns and Maggi did not maintain an office or other space for the purpose of a joint
campaign headquarters.
a. Both individuals utilized their home residence addresses for their campaign
headquarters.
b. Both candidates routinely utilized their respective home telephone numbers as
contact numbers regarding campaign related issues.
7. Burns' and Maggi's joint campaign committee was composed of members of each
candidate's independent committee.
a. Additional individuals who were not members of the individual committees
occasionally assisted with joint campaign committee activities.
8. Within Burns' and Maggi's joint campaign committee, a "grassroots" committee was
Maqqi 03 -032
Page 3
formed.
a. The purpose of the grassroots committee was to generate support for the
candidates through a series of events held in different geographical areas of the
county.
9. The events organized by the grassroots committee were not fundraisers.
a. The events provided interested individuals with the opportunity to meet Burns
and Maggi and listen to a brief presentation.
10. Lewis Irwin, Joe Zupancic, Chris Wheat, and Todd Ashmore were the four core
members of the grassroots committee.
a. Other interested individuals occasionally assisted in the grassroots committee's
activities.
11. Early in its existence, the grassroots committee primarily met at Maggi's residence
regarding committee events, campaign planning, etc.
a. The grassroots committee did not initially meet on a regular basis.
12. After January 2003, the grassroots committee began meeting in the conference room
of the law firm of Rosenberg, Sewak, Pizzi, and Bell located in Washington, Pa.
a. Zupancic is an attorney employed at Rosenberg, Sewak, Pizzi, and Bell.
b. The frequency of meetings increased after January 2003.
13. The grassroots committee generated mailing lists of individuals in different
geographical areas who were known by Burns and Maggi for the purpose of sending
notification regarding the upcoming grassroots events.
a. Burns and Maggi assisted in compiling the lists.
14. Notification of individuals on the mailing list was to be accomplished with the
distribution of a letter detailing the upcoming election, the idea behind the grassroots
event, the location of the event, and the time of the event along with RSVP information
as shown below:
"Dear
As you know, a critical election will take place on May 20 as together we will
seek the Democratic Party nominations for County Commissioner in the primary
election that day. The truth is, this election will go a long way toward determining the
quality of life in Washington County for many years to come. Your next Washington
County Board of Commissioners will make crucial decisions regarding property taxes,
the county's efforts toward economic redevelopment, and the quality and efficiency of
the public services that our county provides. We believe that together we represent the
best chance of electing an experienced team that will work together to put the citizens
of the county ahead of the petty, personal politics of recent years.
With all this in mind, we are writing today to ask for your help with an initiative
aimed at getting the word out to the democratic voters in your community. We are
enlisting the help of both Republican and Democratic friends in this effort, all of whom
have in common their service to the community and their desire for good, honest
government that works hard for all of us. Very simply, our efforts will be focused on
personal contacts over the next three months with people we know. To be specific,
Maqqi 03 -032
Page 4
were not doing any 'tele- marketing,' door -to -door canvassing, fund - raising, or the like.
Instead, on (Date) we're going to get together to talk about ways that we can help
spread the message 'quietly' to the people we already know. Given the quality and
character of the people who've already agreed to help us, we're confident that we can
get the word out in simple ways that we'll discuss that evening. Here are the details:
What: A chance to meet with Larry and Bracken and a brief presentation;
When: (Date) with light refreshments from (Time) and a short presentation
beginning promptly at (Time).
Where: (Applicable Location).
RSVP: Please RSVP as soon as possible to either Joy Sprowls at 724 -228-
6840 (Larry's Office) or to Sue Orrick at 724 -228 -6726 (Bracken's
office) AND feel free to bring additional guests.
Every single vote will matter in this primary election, and you can make a
difference! We hope very much that you will join us in this important effort, and thank
you for your friendship and your support.
Bracken Burns Larry Maggi"
a. Burns' and Maggi's signatures appeared above their printed names on the
majority of letters mailed.
b. Irwin was the author of the initial draft of the grassroots letter that was
distributed.
15. Joy Sprowls is one of four full -time administrative personnel employed by the
Washington County Sheriff's Office.
a. Joy Sprowls is employed as Maggi's administrative assistant /secretary.
1. Sprowls is a member of Maggi's independent campaign committee.
16. Sue Orrick is one of five full time administrative personnel employed by the
Washington County Commissioner's Office.
a. Three of the administrative staff individuals are employed as administrative
assistants to the three individual commissioners.
1. Sue Orrick is employed as Burns' administrative assistant /secretary.
2. Orrick is a member of Burns' independent campaign committee.
17. The direct dial telephone number for the Washington County Sheriffs Office is 724-
228 -6840.
a. Telephone number 724 - 228 -6840 rings at the front reception area of the
sheriff's office.
18. Incoming calls on line 724 - 228 -6840 ring alternately at all telephones in the sheriff's
office.
a. If unanswered the call automatically transfers to one of the three remaining
administrative staff in an established order until answered.
Maqqi 03 -032
Page 5
b. Calls can then be transferred to any telephone throughout the sheriffs office.
c. All four administrative staff and the sheriff have direct dial numbers.
19. Burns and Maggi did not review the contents of the letter prior to the letter being
printed.
20. A total of five grassroots events were organized for which notification letters were
distributed to various Washington County residents in specific geographic areas of the
county.
a. Letters distributed for the first four events requested RSVPs as shown below:
Date of Letter Date and Location of Event
March 16, 2003
March 23, 2003
March 30, 2003
April 3, 2003
1. Orrick fielded six of the calls.
April 1, 2003 — Charleroi, Pa
April 9, 2003 — Washington, Pa
April 16, 2003 — Burgettstown, Pa
April 23, 2003 — Bentleyville, Pa
21. The telephone numbers of Burns' and Maggi's offices and the names of their
subordinate staff were listed as contacts on letters dated March 16, 2003; March 23,
2003; and March 30, 2003.
22. On April 11, 2003, the Weekly Recorder, a local newspaper in the Washington, Pa
area, published a copy of the March 23, 2003 grassroots letter.
a. The article associated with the letter questioned the appropriateness of Burns
and Maggi instructing recipients to RSVP to their respective county offices.
b. The article incorrectly labeled the correspondence as a "campaign fundraising
letter."
23. As a result of the article appearing in the Weekly Recorder, the RSVP request was
omitted from the mailing of April 3, 2003.
a. The work telephone numbers of Sprowls and Orrick were deleted.
b. The final mailing was dated April 14, 2003 for the event scheduled on April 28,
2003 in Canonsburg, Pa.
24. The RSVP number for Sprowls recorded on the first four grassroots letters was the
direct dial number for the sheriffs office.
a. Sprowls' individual direct dial telephone number was not recorded on the letters.
25. Although an RSVP was requested on the first four series of grassroots letters mailed,
only a nominal number of RSVPs were actually made to Orrick and Sprowls.
a. In a sworn statement provided to Ethics Commission investigators on
September 3, 2003, Orrick estimated that she received a total of seven RSVPs
regarding the March 23, 2003 mailing.
2. One was taken by an unknown administrative individual.
Maqqi 03 -032
Page 6
3. The amount of time utilized on each call was minimal.
b. In a sworn statement provided on September 3, 2003, Sprowls estimated that
she received a total of six to eight RSVPs regarding the March 23, 2003
mailing.
1. The amount of time utilized on each call was minimal.
26. Orrick received additional calls at her county office regarding the other grassroots
events.
a. Orrick estimates the number of additional calls received and amount of time
spent as minimal.
b. No documentation of total RSVPs received was maintained.
27. Sprowls did not recall receiving any RSVP calls for additional grassroots events.
a. Sprowls acknowledged that the number of additional calls received, if any, was
minimal.
b. No documentation of total RSVP's received was maintained.
28. In addition to fielding RSVP telephone calls for various events, Sprowls participated in
additional campaign activities for Maggi in county offices.
a. The additional activities occurred either prior to or after regular county office
hours.
1. Regular county office hours for Sprowls are 9:OOa- 4:30p.
29. Sprowls participated in work sessions where envelopes were labeled and filled with
campaign mailings on two occasions.
a. The first occasion was during the 2001 electrical and the second during the
2003 primary.
b. All materials used (paper, envelopes, stamps, etc) were provided by the
committee.
30. Additional employees of the Sheriff's Department participating in one or both of the
sessions included Lori Goblesky, John Rheel, Jim Altman, William Bryker, and Orrick.
a. Goblesky is employed as a Cashier!! in the sheriff's office.
b. Rheel is employed as the Chief Deputy in the sheriffs office
c. Altman and Bryker are employed as Captains in the sheriffs office.
d. Rheil, Altman, Bryker are 20 year friends of Sheriff Maggi.
e. All five (5) volunteered their time.
31. County employees participating in one or both of the sessions included Sprowls,
Goblesky, Rheel, Altman, and Bryker.
a. Various non - county employees including the spouses of Maggi, Rheel, Altman,
Maqqi 03 -032
Page 7
and Bryker participated in the sessions.
b. Various family members of the county employees also participated in the
sessions.
32. Activity occurring at the work sessions primarily revolved around the addressing and
filling of envelopes.
a. No county materials (i.e. envelopes, stamps, labels) were utilized at the
sessions.
33. In a sworn statement provided to Ethics Commission investigators on October 31,
2003, Maggi acknowledged holding at least two work sessions in the county office
building which were campaign related in nature.
a. Maggi claimed that both of the sessions held occurred after normal county
working hours.
b. Maggi estimated the length of both sessions at approximately thirty to sixty
minutes.
c. One session occurred when Maggi was running for re- election as the county
sheriff and one occurred when Maggi was running for county commissioner.
III. DISCUSSION:
At all times relevant to this matter, the Respondent, Larry Maggi, hereinafter Maggi, 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 Maggi, as Sheriff of Washington County, violated Sections
1103(a) and 1103(b) of the Ethics Act when he utilized employees and facilities of his office,
including telephones to solicit support for his candidacy for the Office of County
Commissioner.
Pursuant to Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, a public official /public employee is
prohibited from engaging in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest.
The term "conflict of interest" is defined under Act 93 of 1998 as follows:
Section 1102. Definitions
"Conflict" or "conflict of interest." Use by a public official
or public employee of the authority of his office or employment or
any confidential information received through his holding public
f
of ce or employment for the private pecuniary benefit of himself,
a member of his immediate family or a business with which he or
a member of his immediate family is associated. "Conflict" or
"conflict of interest" does not include an action having a de
minimis economic impact or which affects to the same degree a
class consisting of the general public or a subclass consisting of
an industry, occupation or other group which includes the public
official or public employee, a member of his immediate family or a
business with which he or a member of his immediate family is
associated.
Maqqi 03 -032
Page 8
65 Pa.C.S. § 1102.
Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act prohibits a public official /public employee from using
the authority of public office /employment or confidential information received by holding such a
public position for the private pecuniary benefit of the public official /public employee himself,
any member of his immediate family, or a business with which he or a member of his
immediate family is associated.
As noted above, the parties have submitted a Consent Agreement and Stipulation of
Findings. The parties' Stipulated Findings are reproduced above as the Findings of this
Commission. We shall now summarize the relevant facts as contained therein.
Maggi has served as the Sheriff of Washington County since 1998. Maggi was a
candidate for county commissioner in the 2003 election. Although County Commissioner
Burns and Maggi established a joint campaign committee for the 2003 election, named the
"Burns -Maggi for Commissioners Committee," they maintained separate, individual campaign
committees. Both individuals utilized their residences and home telephone numbers for
campaign headquarters. The Burns and Maggi campaign committee was comprised of
members from each candidate's independent committee.
A "grassroots" committee was formed for the purpose of generating support for the
candidates through a series of events held in different areas of the county. The grassroots
committee was not organized for fundraisers but rather for mailing lists to individuals in
different geographical areas. Such individuals were known by Burns and Maggi and were
sent notification letters regarding the upcoming events. Interested individuals could go and
meet Burns and Maggi and listen to their presentations. The format for the notification letter
appears as Fact Finding 14.
Burns and Maggi did not review the contents of the notification letter prior to its printing.
A total of five grassroots event letters were distributed to various Washington County
residents targeted at specific geographic areas. For the first four events the letters requested
RSVPs to the telephone numbers of Burns' and Maggi's county offices. The names of their
subordinate staff were listed as contacts on letters dated March 16, 2003; March 23, 2003;
and March 30, 2003. On April 11, 2003, the Weekly Recorder, a local newspaper, published
a copy of the March 23, 2003 grassroots letter and questioned the appropriateness of Burns
and Maggi instructing recipients to RSVP their respective county offices. As a result of the
article appearing in the Weekly Recorder, the RSVP request was omitted from the April 3,
2003 mailing.
Joy Sprowls, who is one of four full -time administrative personnel employed by the
Washington County Sheriffs Office, is Maggi's administrative assistant/secretary and a member of
his independent campaign committee. Sue Orrick is one of five full -time administrative personnel
employed by the Washington County Commissioner's Office, three of whom are employed as
administrative assistants to the three individual county commissioners. Orrick is Burns' administrative
assistant/secretary and is a member of his independent campaign committee. The Washington
County Sheriffs Office has a direct dial telephone number with incoming calls ringing altemately at all
telephones in the sheriffs office.
Although an RSVP was requested on the first four series of grassroots letters mailed,
only a nominal number of RSVPs were actually made to Orrick and Sprowls. Orrick estimated
that she received a total of seven RSVPs regarding the March 23, 2003 mailing. The amount
of time utilized on each call was minimal. Orrick received additional calls at her county office
regarding the other grassroots events. Orrick estimates the number of additional calls
received and amount of time spent was minimal. Sprowls did not recall receiving any RSVP
calls for additional grassroots events.
In addition to fielding RSVP telephone calls for various events, Sprowls participated in
Maqqi 03 -032
Page 9
additional campaign activities for Maggi in the county offices. The additional activities
occurred either prior to or after regular county office hours. Sprowls participated on two
occasions in work sessions where envelopes were labeled and filled with campaign mailings.
All materials used were provided by the campaign committee. Additional employees of the
Sheriff's Department participating in one or both of the sessions included Lori Goblesky, John
Rheel, Jim Altman, William Bryker, and Orrick. All five volunteered their time.
County employees who participated in one or both of the sessions included Sprowls,
Goblesky, Rheel, Altman, and Bryker. Activities occurring at the work sessions primarily
revolved around addressing and filling the envelopes. No county materials were utilized at the
sessions. Maggi acknowledged holding at least two work sessions in the county office
building which were campaign related in nature. Maggi claimed that both of the sessions
occurred after normal county working hours. Maggi estimated the length of both sessions at
approximately thirty to sixty minutes.
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 that
this Commission find a de minimis violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when
employees of the Sheriff's Office received telephone calls related to Maggi's re- election
campaign due to the limited number of calls received by support staff and an unintentional
violation of Section 1103(b) [sic] when Maggie listed office telephone numbers on campaign
letters.
In applying Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act to the instant matter, there was a use of
authority of office by Maggi. In particular, there was a utilization of county telephones for
campaign purposes, albeit for very minimal times. Such action necessitated that county staff
would have to answer the RSVP telephone calls. Such actions were uses of authority of
office. See, Juliante, Order 809. The uses of authority of office inured to the benefit of Maggi
in that he or his campaign had no out of pocket expenditures for such utilization of county
offices, staff, and telephones. Lastly, the private pecuniary benefit inured to Maggi himself.
Accordingly, Maggi unintentionally violated Section 1103([a]) of the Ethics Act when he used
the authority of office to list his county office telephone number on campaign letters that had
been mailed. See, Rockefeller, Order 1004.
Regarding the use of county employees for receiving telephone calls relative to Maggi's
re- election, the stipulated facts reflect that the calls received by support staff were of a limited
number so as to constitute "a de minimis violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act" as per
the Consent Agreement of the parties. Accordingly, a "de minimis violation" of Section
1103(a) of the Ethics Act occurred when Maggi utilized county employees to receive
telephone calls for his re- election campaign where the calls received by staff were of a limited
number. See, Terrizzi, Order 1090; Clinemyer, Order 1235.
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.
IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
1. Maggi, as a Sheriff of Washington County, is a public official subject to the provisions
of Act 9 of 1989 as codified by Act 93 of 1998.
2. Maggi unintentionally violated Section 1103([a]) of the Ethics Act when he used the
authority of office to list his county office telephone number on mailed campaign letters.
Maqqi 03 -032
Page 10
3. A "de minimis violation" of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act occurred when Maggi
utilized county employees to receive telephone calls for his re- election campaign where
the calls received by staff were of a limited number.
In Re: Larry Maggi
ORDER NO. 1315
File Docket: 03 -032
Date Decided: March 11, 2004
Date Mailed: March 26, 2004
1. Maggi, as a Sheriff of Washington County, unintentionally violated Section 1103([a]) of
the Ethics Act when he used the authority of office to list his county office telephone
number on mailed campaign letters.
2. A "de minimis violation" of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act occurred when Maggi
utilized county employees to receive telephone calls for his re- election campaign where
the calls received by staff were of a limited number.
BY THE COMMISSION,
Louis W. Fryman, Chair
Commissioner Michael Healey, Esquire, did not participate in the consideration of this matter.