HomeMy WebLinkAbout1847, McCoyPHONE: 717-783-1610
TOLL FREE: 1-800-932-0936
In Re: William L. McCoy,
Respondent
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
FINANCE BUILDING
613 NORTH STREET, ROOM 309
HARRISBURG, PA 17120-0400
File Docket:
Order No.
Date Decided:
Date Mailed:
23-0065-C
1847
9/18/25
9/22/25
Before: Michael A. Schwartz, Chair
David L. Reddecliff, Vice Chair
Paul E. Parsells
Robert P. Caruso
Emilia McKee Vassallo
This is a final adjudication of the State Ethics Commission,
FACSIMILE: 717-787-0806
WEBSITE: www.ethics_pa.goy
Procedurally, the Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission conducted an
investigation regarding possible violation(s) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act
("Ethics Act"), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et sect., by the above -named Respondent. At the commencement
of its investigation, the Investigative Division served upon Respondent written notice of the
specific allegations. Upon completion of its investigation, the Investigative Division issued and
served upon Respondent a Findings Report identified as an "Investigative Complaint." An Answer
was filed, and a hearing was held. Both parties filed written Closing Statements and Post -Hearing
Briefs. The record is now complete.
I. ALLEGATIONS:
That William L. McCoy, a public official in his capacity as a Member of the Board of
Supervisors for Gallagher Township, Clinton County ("Township Board of Supervisors"), violated
Section 1103(a) of the State Ethics Act (Act 93 of 1998):
(1) When he used the authority of his public office for the private pecuniary benefit of
himself when, absent appointment or authorization by the Township Board of
Supervisors and/or the Township Board of Auditors, he used his public office to
assume a position of employment with the Township and set his own scope and
hours of work, receiving compensation for same; and
(2) When he used the authority of his public office for the private pecuniary benefit of
himself when he billed the Township and received payment for performing
administrative work he was expected to complete in the regular course of his duties
as an elected Supei visor, I
'The Investigative Division also alleged that McCoy violated the financial reporting requirements of the Ethics Act
McCoy, 23-0065-C
Page 2
II. FINDINGS:
A. Relevant Admitted PleadinLys
1. WilIiam L. McCoy ("McCoy") has served as a Member of the Board of Supervisors
("Board") of Gallagher Township ("Township"), Clinton County, since 2012, and has held
the position of Chair of the Board since 2018.
2. The Township is a Second Class Township governed by a three -Member Board.
a. As a Township Supervisor, McCoy received $75.00 per meeting, up to $1,875.00
per year, from the Township.
3. Section 607 of the Second Class Township Code lists the duties of supervisors, which
include the following:
a. General governance of the township and execution of legislative, executive and
administrative powers in order to ensure soured fiscal management and to secure
the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the township;
b. Maintaining township -owned equipment and facilities;
C. Employing and setting compensation of persons as may be necessary for the general
conduct of the business of the township. Records shall be kept and reports made
and filed giving the names of all persons employed, dates on which work was done
and the number of hours worked with compensation paid to each person and the
capacity in which employed;
d. Authorizing attendance at conferences, institutes, schools and conventions;
C. Annually furnishing to the board of auditors information on the construction or
maintenance of roads or other matters that may be required by any department of
the Commonwealth to be included in the annual township report;
£ Providing for the annual tax duplicate to be prepared and presented to the tax
collector; and
g. Performing duties and exercising powers as may be imposed or conferred by law
or the rules and regulations of any agency of the Commonwealth.
by filing a deficient Statement of Financial Interests for calendar year 2019; however, the Investigative Division opted
to exercise its prosecutorial discretion and not pursue this allegation because McCoy corrected the violation. N.T. at
115. Consequently, there will be no further discussion herein of this matter.
McCoy, 23-0065-C
Page 3
THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS RELATE TO ALLEGATIONS THAT MCCOY USED
HIS OFFICE TO ASSUME A POSITION OF EMPLOYMENT WITH THE TOWNSHIP
AND SET HIS OWN SCOPE AND HOURS OF WORK, AS WELL AS RECEIVE
COMPENSATION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE DUTIES OF A TOWNSHIP SUPERVISOR.
4. The Board of Supervisors did not appoint McCoy to the position of "Roadmaster" or to
any other employment position during the Township's organization meeting on January 3,
2023.
a. The Township Board of Auditors established wages for roadmasters and working
supervisors at the Auditors' meeting on January 4, 2023, but did not specify any
individual supervisors who would be undertaking those duties.
b. None of the Township Supervisors were formally assigned to employment
positions until the May 30, 2023,2 meeting of the Board of Auditors.
C. McCoy worked without approved wages and without a formally assigned position
between January 3, 2023, and March 31, 2023.
5. At the March 1, 2023, Board of Supervisors meeting, Supervisor Hoy requested that
McCoy indicate what he was doing on his timecard, and McCoy agreed that he would begin
noting his timecards going forward.
a. Supervisor Hoy questioned whether McCoy was working in the capacity of the new
job description classification, "Working Supervisor", to which McCoy responded
that he was so working.
b. No "Working Supervisor" job description existed as of the March 1, 2023, Board
of Supervisors meeting.
G. At the April 5, 2023, Board of Supervisors meeting, the Supervisors discussed the
appointment and retroactive compensation of McCoy and Supervisor Mann.
a. McCoy noted that in January 2023, a wage had been set by the Auditors for the
position of Working Supervisor.
b. The Township Solicitor advised that although a wage had been set for a Working
Supervisor position, no Supervisors had been appointed to the position.
C. The Solicitor recommended that the Township Supervisors retroactively appoint
McCoy and Supervisor Mann to existing positions so that they could be
compensated for the work rendered to date.
'Although this date was admitted by McCoy in his Answer, the evidence in this matter demonstrates that the Board
of Auditors formally appointed McCoy to a paid township position at its meeting on April 19, 2023.
McCa , 23-0065-C
page
7. The Supervisors agreed that the Auditors needed to establish the salary for the Supervisors
working in those positions so that there was no conflict of interest.
a. At the April 5, 2023, Township meeting, McCoy was appointed as Foreman.
8. On April 11, 2023, the Township Solicitor emailed Supervisors McCoy, Mann and Hoy to
advise them on how the Auditors should establish the wages for the Supervisors in the
Foreman/skilled labor positions:
From: Justin Houser <jkhQcrwlaw.net>
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 11:55 AM
To: Gallagher Township Supervisors
Cc: wmch€e1`18;8r1an Hoy; supervisor0125Qgmail.com
Subjeot: Auditors Meeting
Dear All:
I understand that there have been some questions regarding the role of the auditors at their next
meeting. Because two (2) supervisors have been performing work for the Township for which
they were compensated, but were never officially hired as employees of the Township, they were
hired as employees at the April meeting. Bill McCoy was hired as foreman. Will Mann was
hired as skilled laborer. The Board of Auditors needs to meet publicly, after having advertised
their meeting, and establish an hourly wage for Bill McCoy as foreman and Wilt Mann as skilled
laborer. That wage should be "comparable to compensation in the locality for similar services."
This wage will be retroactive to January.
The Second Class Township Code provides in pertinent part as follows:
The board of auditors shall meet annually at the place of meeting of the board of supervisors
on the day following the day designated by this act for organization of the board of
supervisors and they shall organize by the election of a chairman and secretary.
... The board of auditors shall determine the compensations for the current year authorized
In section 606 for supervisors employed by the township. Two auditors shall constitute a
quorum.
53 P.S.§65801. Section 606 provides In pertinent part as follows:
The compensation of supervisors, when employed as roadmasters, laborers, secretary,
treasurer, assistant secretary, assistant treasurer or In any employe capacity not
otherwise prohibited by this or any other act, shall be determined by the board of auditors,
at an hourly, daily, weekly, semi-monthly or monthly basis, which shall be comparable to
compensation paid In the locality for similar services.
53 P.S. §65606_ Any questions, let me know.
Justin
Justin K. Mouser, Esquire
9, The Board of Auditors met on April 19, 2023, and set McCoy's Road Foreman
compensation at $15.00 per hour for no more than 20 hours per week.
a. The Board of Auditors required McCoy to complete a timecard listing the hours
worked and the work completed.
MCC 23-0065-C
Page 5
b. The Board of Auditors also approved McCoy's hourly wages retroactive to Januaiy
1, 2023.
C. In addition, the Board of Auditors set compensation for Supervisors Mann and Hoy
as Skilled Laborer and Roadmaster, respectively, with their wages also retroactive
to January 1, 2023, and February 1, 2023, respectively.
10. At the May 3, 2023, Board of Supervisors meeting, McCoy added to the agenda an item
"Review Letter from Scott Coburn/Review Township Ordinance."
a. McCoy mentioned an email he had received from Coburn, Counsel for PSATS,3
which he believed required changes in the retroactivity of the wages paid.
11. On May 30, 2023, the Township Auditors met and set wages for the three Township
Supervisors retroactive to April 1, 2023.
a. The Auditors approved wages of $15.00 per hour for McCoy to serve as Road
Foreman.
B. Testimony
12. Mary Fox ("Fox") is the Executive Director of the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission.
a. Fox oversees the work performed by the Administrative and Investigative Divisions
of the State Ethics Commission.
b. Fox's duties include reviewing complaints.
i. Fox confirmed that a complaint was filed against McCoy on or about March
24, 2023.
13. Gabriel Stahl ("Stahl") is a Special Investigator for the State Ethics Commission.
a. Stahl was involved in the Investigative Division's investigation of the complaint
against McCoy.
b. Based upon her experience with the State Ethics Commission, Stahl explained that
a township supervisor's duties entail overseeing general township administrative
functions, financials and the safety of citizens of that township.
C. A township roadmaster is tinder the supervision of the township supervisors and is
responsible for overseeing road construction and maintenance.
d. Exhibit ID-2 is a sworn statement of McCoy taken by Stahl on November 30, 2023.
s PSATS is the acronym for Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors.
MC,C�_o_y, 23-0065-C
Page 6
L McCoy confirmed the duties of Roadmaster as overseeing township road
maintenance duties.
ii. McCoy explained that as a township supervisor, he supervises township
functions and works with the public.
iii. Between January and March of 2023, McCoy performed duties including
reviewing timecards for part-time employees, making phone calls, taking
care of some road issues, working on pump repairs of township equipment
and picking up garbage along the road.
e. McCoy was not appointed to any position other than supervisor for the timeframe
of January to March 2023.
i. McCoy would punch in and out on a timecard and then give his timecard to
Mary, the township secretary. Timecards were then submitted to the
supervisors for approval at a public meeting, after which they were paid.
14. Mary Myers ("Myers") was the Township secretary/treasurer from October 2021 to
December 2023.
a. Myers' duties included accounting, keeping audits, doing any required state and
federal filings, payroll collecting, and keeping meeting minutes.
b. Exhibit ID-3 is a copy McCoy's timecards from January 14, 2023, to April 22,
2023.
15. Brian Hoy ("Hoy") has been a Township Supervisor since 2022 and also currently serves
as Roadmaster.
a. He receives compensation for being Roadmaster and a monthly salary for serving
as a supervisor.
b. Exhibit ID-4 consists of the meeting minutes of the January 3, 2023, organization
meeting of the Township and its supervisors.
L Hoy asked to be appointed as Roadmaster for 2023.
ii. McCoy did not request to be appointed to any Township position at the
January 3, 2023, organization meeting even though this was the meeting in
which to make such requests.
iii. The minutes do not reflect an appointment to any Township position for
McCoy in 2023.
MCCO , 23-0065-C
Page
C. Hoy explained that timecards are collected by the Township secretary and sent via
email to the supervisors for approval.
d. Exhibit ID-7 is a document containing descriptions for all active positions within
the Township.
The duties of a Township Supervisor include conducting monthly meetings
regarding township business, working with the public, discussing business
related and township expenditures and revenues, overseeing all business
and financial issues, and discussing decisions made on behalf of township
citizens.
ii. Making phone calls and reviewing and completing timecards are considered
part of the duties of a Township Supervisor.
iii. There is no listing for a "working supervisor" in Exhibit ID-7.
e. The process for creating a new position at the Township involves an initial
discussion at a Township meeting, a review of the process by the Solicitor, creation
of a job description, filrther discussion at a work session, and approval at a
Township meeting.
Approval of a salary or hourly pay rate is not enough to create a position
within the Township.
ii. There was never an official position created with the title "working
supervisor."
iii. No one was ever appointed to a position entitled "working supervisor."
f. Hoy was one of the supervisors that was responsible for approving McCoy's
timecards.
i. Hoy questioned whether McCoy was billing for additional duties beyond
those of Supervisor.
g. Exhibit ID-5 consists of the meeting minutes of the April 5, 2023, meeting of the
Township and its supervisors.
i. Prior to this meeting, neither McCoy nor Hoy held any position with the
Township other than Supervisor.
ii. McCoy and Mann were appointed to positions with the Township at this
meeting.
McCov, 23-0065-C
Page 8
h. Exhibit ID-6 consists of the meeting minutes of the April 19, 2023, meeting of the
Township Board of Auditors.
i. During the time that McCoy was billing the Township for work while Hoy was
Roadmaster, Hoy never instructed or authorized McCoy to do any of the work for
which he billed the Township.
i. Hoy was not aware that McCoy was performing this additional work until
he reviewed McCoy's timecards.
16. William H. Mann, III ("Mann"), has been a Township Supervisor since February 2023 and
also is employed by the Township as a Foreman.
a. He is paid $75.00 per meeting as a Township Supervisor.
b. He was informed by McCoy and Myers that as a Township Supervisor, he also was
an employee of the Township.
i. Any additional duties he performed as an employee of the Township in early
2023 were at the direction of McCoy.
ii. Mann performed approximately 11 hours of work under the direction of
McCoy and received approximately $140.00.
During a work session to update the Township policy and procedure manual, Mann
noticed a new position for "working supervisor" which had essentially the identical
duties of Township Supervisor.
i. McCoy informed him that the "working supervisor" description came from
PSATS.
d. Mann contacted PSATS and surprisingly learned that he was not, in fact, an
employee of the Township because he was not appointed to a Township position,
the duties did not have a job description, and the hourly wage was not set by the
Township Board of Auditors.
Mann did not perform any additional work for the Township once he
realized that he had not been properly appointed to a position.
17. Holly Fishel ("Fishel") of PSATS4 testified that PSATS does not provide legal advice and
that they routinely advise members of an organization to consult with their solicitor.
18. ,Tustin Houser, Esquire ("Houser") has been the Solicitor for the Township since March
2021.
4 Fishel's position with PSATS was not identified.
M_.. _cQgy, 23-0065-C
Page 9
After a question arose about whether a Township Supervisor could do work for the
Township without being compensated, Houser advised McCoy, Hoy, and Mann in
an email that a Township Supervisor must be compensated for any work done for
the Township outside of his Supervisory duties.
b. Sometime in March 2023, Houser became aware that McCoy and Mann were doing
work or had done work without having been appointed to a Township position.
C. Houser reconunended that the "least bad way" to correct the issue was for the Board
to retroactively appoint McCoy and Mann to the positions commensurate with
duties they had been performing and were paid and then have the Board of Auditors
retroactively set the pay for McCoy and Mann. N.T. 96-97, 103.
L The Board voted to retroactively appoint McCoy and Mann at the April 5,
2023, meeting.
ii. McCoy was appointed to the position of Foreman retroactive to the January
3, 2023, meeting.
d. Houser acknowledged that none of the Supervisors sought his advice on this issue
until after McCoy and Mann were already working and being paid.
e. Houser never issued any advice, formal or otherwise, prior to McCoy working and
collecting compensation for doing that work.
f Houser did not recommend that a position of "working supervisor" be created
because it was too easy for the duties of that position to cross over into non-
compensable supervisor duties.
C. Exhibits
19. ID - 2 is the sworn statement of William McCoy taken on November 30, 2023, by Special
Investigator Gabriel Stahl and Senior Special Investigator Daniel Bender.
20. ID - 3 consists of paycheck stubs and corresponding timecards for William L. McCoy for
the following time periods;
a. January 1, 2023, through January 14, 2023 (Net pay $436.06*);
b. January 15, 2023, through January 28, 2023 (Net pay $261.43);
c. January 29, 2023, through February 11, 2023 (Net pay $12.74);
d. February 12, 2023, through February 25, 2023 (Net pay $436.14*);
e. February 26, 2023, through March 11, 2023 (Net pay $403.13);
f. March 12, 2023, through March 25, 2023 (Net pay $396.94*);
g. March 26, 2023, through April 8, 2023 (Net pay $427.08*); and
h. April 9, 2023, through April 22, 2023 (Net pay $383.50*).
M_ CCoy, 23-0065-C
Page 10
*The net pay was arrived at by subtracting the $75.00 lawfully received as payment for
attending Township Board meetings from the total net pay listed on McCoy's paystubs.
21. ID — 4 consists of the minutes of the January 3, 2023, Township Board meeting in which
the Supervisors set the hourly rates for various positions, including working supervisor,
secretary/treasurer, foreman, skilled laborers, and unskilled/temporary laborers. The
Supervisors referred the salary recommendation for the position of working supervisor,
including those serving as a roadmaster, to the Board of Auditors for approval.
Supervisor Brian J. Hoy was appointed Roadmaster; however, no other Supervisors were
appointed to positions at this meeting.
McCoy signed the meeting minutes as Chair of the Board, along with Secretaty/Treasurer
Mary J. Myers.
22. ID — 5 consists of the minutes of the April 5, 2023, Township Board meeting in which a
lengthy discussion occurred pertaining to the appointment of and retroactive compensation
of certain employees, including McCoy. These minutes provide, in pertinent part, as
follows:
Solicitor Justin Houser questioned who was (sic) the working supervisors?
Chairman McCoy stated that no one was specifically appointed. Solicitor Justin
Houser went on to say, the Township has authorized payment for a working
supervisor, but no one has been appointed until now. Supervisor Mann also stated
in the Policy and Procedure Manual, the Township doesn't have a job description
for a working supervisor... At this time, the Township currently doesn't have a job
description for a working supervisor. He (Supervisor Mann) became a Supervisor
after the organization meeting in January 2023. Both he and Chairman McCoy
weren't appointed to fill any position except as a Supervisor (Emphasis added).
Solicitor Houser recommended that Supervisors McCoy and Mann be appointed to the
positions of Foreman and Skilled Laborer, respectively, retroactive to the January 3, 2023,
organization meeting.
McCoy signed the meeting minutes as Chair of the Board, along with Secretary/Treasurer
Mary J. Myers.
23. ID — 6 consists of the minutes of the April 19, 2023, meeting of the Board of Auditors for
the purpose of setting wages for the positions of Roadmaster, Road Foreman and Skilled
Laborer. Hourly wages for McCoy and Hoy were made retroactive to January 1, 2023,
while Mann's wages were retroactive to February 1, 2023. The Board of Auditors also
decided that the three supervisors will use a time clock to document the hours worked and
the work completed.
McCoy, 23-0065-C
Page i l
24. ID — 7 is a copy of the job descriptions for Township employees. The positions listed,
include supervisor, unskilled labor, skilled labor, foreman, and secretary/treasurer. There
is no description for a working supervisor.
The Township defines "Supervisor" as "Elected official to conduct monthly meetings
regarding township business working with the public, discuss business related to township
expenditures and revenues, oversee all business and financial issues, and decision making
on behalf of residents of Gallagher Township in accordance with the Pennsylvania Second
Class Township Code Section 607."
25. R — 3 consists of the minutes of the January 4, 2023, meeting of the Board of Auditors in
which they set the wages for Roadmaster and Working Supervisor.
26. R — 5 is a duplicate of ID -- 6 except this copy contains the signatures of the members of
the Board of Auditors.
27. R — 7 is a March 22, 2023, email from Solicitor Justin Houser to Supervisors McCoy, Hoy
and Mann in response to Supervisor Hoy's request that he research whether a township
supervisor must be compensated for any work done for the township. Solicitor Houser
researched the Second Class Township Code and opined that supervisors, when employed
as roadmasters, laborers, secretary, treasurer, assistant secretary, assistant treasurer
or any employe capacity not prohibited by law, must be compensated at a rate approved
by the Board of Auditors (Emphasis Added).
28. R — 18 is a copy of the Gallagher Township Personnel Policy and Procedures Manual
adopted April 7, 2021. This Manual does not contain a position description for a Working
Supervisor,
29. R — 25 consists of the minutes of the March 1, 2023, Township Board meeting.
III. DISCUSSION:
As a Member of the Board of Supervisors (`Board") of Gallagher Township ("Township")
Clinton County, from 2012 to the present, Respondent William L. McCoy ("McCoy") was a public
official subject to the provisions of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act ("Ethics Act"),
65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq.
The allegations are as follows:
(a) That McCoy violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when, absent appointment
or authorization by the Township Board of Supervisors and/or the Township Board
of Auditors, he used his public office to assume a position of employment with the
Township and set his own scope and hours of work, receiving compensation for
same; and
McCoy, 23-0065-C
Page 12
(b) That McCoy violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he used the authority
of his public office for the private pecuniary benefit of himself when he billed the
Township and received payment for performing administrative work he was
expected to complete in the regular course of his duties as an elected Supervisor.
Pursuant to Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, a public official/public employee is
prohibited from engaging in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest:
§ 1103. Restricted activities
(a) Conflict of interest. —No public official or public
employee shall engage in conduct that constitutes a conflict of
interest.
65 Pa.C,S. § 1103(a).
The term "conflict" or "conflict of interest" is defined in the Ethics Act as follows:
§ 1102. Definitions
"Conflict" or "conflict of interest." Use by a public
official or public employee of the authority of his office or
employment or any confidential information received through his
holding public office or employment for the private pecuniary
benefit of himself, a member of his immediate family or a business
with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated.
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.
"Authority of office or employment." The actual power
provided by law, the exercise of which is necessary to the
performance of duties and responsibilities unique to a particular
public office or position of public employment.
65 Pa.C.S. § 1102.
Subject to the statutory exclusions to the Ethics Act's definition of the term "conflict" or
"conflict of interest," 65 Pa.C.S. § 1102, pursuant to Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, a public
official/public employee is prohibited from using the authority of public office/employment or
confidential information received by holding such a public position for the private pecuniary
benefit of the public off cial/public employee himself, any 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.
McCoy, 23-0065-C
Page 13
We shall now summarize the relevant facts.
The Township is a Second Class Township governed by a three -member Board. McCoy
has served as a member of the Board since 2012 and has held the position of Chair of the Board
since 2018. He is paid $75.00 per meeting as a Township Supervisor. In Gallagher Township, a
supervisor's duties include overseeing the township and other supervisors, attending executive
sessions and board meetings, and completing administrative tasks.
The Board holds an organization meeting every January where, among other things, the
three Supervisors generally are appointed to employment positions within the Township, such as
Roadmaster, Foreman and Skilled Laborer. The Second Class Township Code permits township
supervisors to be appointed to employment positions by the township so long as the Township's
Board of Auditors sets the rate of compensation and benefits. See 53 P.S. § 65606(a), McCoy held
the position of Roadmaster from 2018 until 2022. Exhibit ID-2, pg. 3.
At the Board's January 3, 2023, organization meeting, the Supervisors were McCoy, Brian
J. Hoy ("Hoy") and Kenneth M. Porter ("Porter").' The Board did not appoint McCoy to the
position of Roadmaster or to any other employment position during the Board's organization
meeting on January 3, 2023. In fact, none of the Township Supervisors were formally assigned to
employment positions during the January 3, 2023, organization meeting. The Township's Board
of Auditors met the following day and established wages for roadmasters and working supervisors
but did not specify any individual supervisors who would be undertaking those duties.
When Mann joined the Board in February 2023, McCoy advised Mann that he was now
also an employee of the Township. Mann performed approximately 11 hours of work under the
direction of McCoy and received approximately $140.00 in compensation. After a dispute arose
about adding the position of "working supervisor"6 to the Township policy and procedure manual,
Mann contacted PSATS only to find out that he was not, in fact, an employee of the Township
because he had not been formally appointed to a Township position, the duties did not have a job
description, and the hourly wage was not set by the Board of Auditors. Mann did not perform any
additional work for the Township once he learned that he had not been properly appointed to a
position. McCoy, however, continued to do work, submit timecards, and receive compensation
from the Township.
Sometime in March 2023, Justin Houser ("Houser"), the Township Solicitor, became
aware that McCoy and Mann were doing work or had done work without having been appointed
to a Township position. Houser recommended that the "least bad way" to correct the issue was for
the Board to retroactively appoint McCoy and Mann to the positions commensurate with duties
they had been performing and were already paid and then have the Board of Auditors retroactively
set the pay for McCoy and Mann. The Board voted to retroactively appoint McCoy and Mann at
5 Porter subsequently left the Board and William Mann ("Mann") was appointed to the position of Supervisor in
February 2023.
The Township Solicitor did not recommend that the position of working supervisor be created because it was too
easy for the duties of the proposed position to cross over into non-compensable supervisor duties.
McCoy, 23-0065-C
Page 14
the April 5, 2023, meeting. McCoy was appointed to the position of Road Foreman retroactive to
the January 3, 2023, meeting. The Board of Auditors met on April 19, 2023, and set the wages and
hours for the three Supervisors' positions with the Township.
Houser acknowledged that none of the Supervisors sought his advice on this issue until
after McCoy and Maml were already working and being paid. Houser never issued any advice,
verbally or in writing, prior to McCoy working and collecting compensation for that work. McCoy
worked without approved wages and without a formally assigned position between January 3,
2023, and April 19, 2023. He performed such duties as reviewing timecards for part-time
employees, making telephone calls, taking care of some road issues, repairing township
equipment, and picking up trash along the road. Most of these duties fall within the duties of
Supervisor. McCoy received $2,757.02 in net pay from the Township for the work he performed
prior to being officially appointed to the position and having his compensation and hours set by
the Board of Auditors.
Having set forth the material facts, we shall now outline the parties' respective
positions/arguments as set forth in the Closing Arguments and Briefs filed by both parties.
The In_v_estizative Division assents the following:
McCoy violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when lie used the authority of his office
to complete work and submit timecards for payment despite not being appointed to an
employee position for the 2023 calendar year, which resulted in a private pecuniary benefit
to himself.
McCoy violated Section 1103 (a) of the Ethics Act when lie used the authority of his office
for the private pecuniary benefit of himself when he billed the Township for work that he
was expected to complete in the course of his duties as an elected Supervisor.
McCoy cannot invoke the defense that he reasonably relied on the advice of the Solicitor
to shield him from action by the Ethics Act because he presented no evidence that he
prospectively contacted the Solicitor to receive advice on this matter.
McCoy has raised the following defenses/arguments:7
The Investigative Division failed to present evidence of intentional misconduct and
therefore cannot meet its burden of proving a violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics
Act.
McCoy argues that the complaint was retaliatory due to an unemployment case involving Supervisor Hoy in which
McCoy claims to have participated in an unemployment fraud investigation against Supervisor Hoy. The Commission
disregards this argument in its entirety inasmuch as there is no testimonial or documentary evidence to support this
allegation. It appears from McCoy's brief that he is tinder the mistaken impression that opening statements and closing
arguments constitute evidence upon which the Commission can rely in adjudicating this matter. However, McCoy
was advised of his opportunity to testify and that his closing statement could not be considered as evidence. N.T. 107-
108. McCoy voluntarily chose not to testify in this matter. Id.
McCoy, 23-0065-C
Page 15
Oversight by the Solicitor and subsequent corrective actions support McCoy's good faith.
McCoy acted in good faith based upon historical Township practices, Solicitor oversight,
and the unique demands of a rural township, all of which negate any conflict of interest.
Having summarized the relevant facts and the positions/arguments of the parties, we must
now determine whether the actions of McCoy violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65
Pa.C.S. § 1103(a).
As we apply the facts to the allegations, due process requires that we not depart from the
allegations. See Permsv v. Department of State, 594 A.2d 845 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991). A violation of
the Ethics Act must be based upon clear and convincing proof. See 65 Pa,C.S. § 1108(g). Clear
and convincing proof is "so `clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to enable the trier of fact to
come to a clear conviction, without hesitance, of the truth of the precise facts in issue."' In Re:
Charles E.D.M., 550 Pa. 595, 601, 708 A.2d 88, 91 (1998) (Citation omitted).
Per the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision in Kistler v. State Ethics Commission, 610
Pa, 516, 22 A.3d 223 (2011), in order to violate Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, a public
official/public employee:
... must act in such a way as to put his [office/public position] to the
purpose of obtaining for himself a private pecuniary benefit. Such
directed action implies awareness on the part of the [public
official/public employee] of the potential pecuniary benefit as well
as the motivation to obtain that benefit for himself.
Kistler, supra, 610 Pa. at 523, 22 A.3d at 227. To violate Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, a public
official/public employee "must be consciously aware of a private pecuniary benefit for himself,
his family, or his business, and then must take action in the form of one or more specific steps to
attain that benefit." Id., 610 Pa. at 528, 22 A.3d at 231.
In considering the first allegation in this matter, we determine that the Investigative
Division has sustained its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that McCoy violated
Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he used the authority of his office to complete work and
submit timecards for payment despite not being appointed to an employee position with wages set
by the Board of Auditors for the 2023 calendar year until April 19, 2023, which resulted in a private
pecuniary benefit to himself.
It is administratively noted that Section 602 of the Second Class Township Code provides
as follows:
§ 602. Organization Meeting; Appointment of Secretary and Treasurer.- -
(c) The board of supervisors may appoint a supervisor to be
employed as roadmaster, laborer, secretary, treasurer, assistant
secretary, assistant treasurer or in any employe capacity not
McCoy, 23-0065-C
Page 16
otherwise prohibited by this or any other act.
53 P.S. § 65602(c).
Section 606 of the Second Class Township Code states in pertinent part:
§ 606. Compensation of supervisors
(a). . . . The compensation of supervisors, when employed as
roadmasters, laborers, secretary, treasurer, assistant secretary,
assistant treasurer or in any employe capacity not otherwise
prohibited by this or any other act, shall be determined by the board
of auditors, at an hourly, daily, weekly, semi-monthly or monthly
basis, which shall be comparable to compensation paid in the
locality for similar services. The board of supervisors may establish
a mileage allowance, under the act of July 20, 1979 (P.L.156,
No. 51), referred to as the Uniform Mileage Fee Law, to be paid to
officers and employes for the use of a personal vehicle when
required and actually used for authorized township business...
53 P.S. § 65606(a) (Emphasis added).
Based upon the foregoing, it is clear that a township supervisor may serve as an employee
of the township if so appointed by the township board of supervisors and with a salary set by the
board of auditors. Both of these conditions must be satisfied prior to a supervisor working and
receiving compensation as a township employee. Neither occurred in this case.
McCoy admitted in his Answer that he worked without approved wages and without a
formally assigned position between January 3, 2023, and April 19, 2023. Investigative Complaint
at 1115, 23, Answer at ¶T 4, 7, 16. Moreover, the January 3, 2023, organization meeting minutes,
along with the credible testimony of Supervisor Hoy and Solicitor Houser confirm the lack of an
appointment to a Township position for McCoy from January to April 2023. Solicitor Houser's
April 11, 2023, email to the Supervisors plainly states that "two (2) supervisors have been
performing work for the Township for which they were compensated but were never officially
hired as employees of the Township. They were hired as employees at the April meeting."
Investigative Complaint at T 22, Answer at 1 15. After identifying McCoy as one of these
Supervisors, Solicitor Houser advises the Board of Auditors to meet publicly and establish an
hourly wage for McCoy. Id.
The evidence shows that the Township Board of Auditors initially established wages for
roadmasters and working supervisors at the Auditors' meeting on January 4, 2023, but none of the
Township Supervisors were formally assigned to these positions or any other employment
positions until the April 5, 2023, Board of Supervisors' meeting. McCoy's wages and hours were
set at the April 19, 2023, meeting of the Board of Auditors. Thus, it was not until April 19, 2023,
that McCoy was lawfully receiving compensation for his employment as a Road Foreman with the
Township. Accordingly, the $2,757.02 in net compensation received by McCoy between January
M, CCoy, 23-0065-C
Page 17
3, 2023, and April 19, 2023, constitutes a private pecuniary benefit contrary to Section I I03(a) of
the Ethics Act.
The second allegation against McCoy is that lie violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act
when he billed the Township and received payment for performing administrative work he was
expected to complete in the regular course of his duties as an elected Supervisor. McCoy denies
any improper conduct related to his billing practices for the Township.
Based upon a review of the evidentiary record, as well as relevant case law, the
Commission concludes that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that McCoy billed and received
payment for tasks that fell under the umbrella of Township Supervisor for which he is entitled to
a $75.00 meeting fee and nothing more. The record shows that McCoy was billing and receiving
payment for many administerial tasks, including reviewing timecards, making telephone calls,
reviewing mail, and drafting letters to the Solicitor. See Exhibit ID-3.
According to the Gallagher Township Personnel Policy and Procedures Manual, the duties
of a Township Supervisor include conducting monthly meetings regarding township business,
working with the public, discussing business related and township expenditures and revenues,
overseeing all business and financial issues, and discussing decisions made on behalf of township
citizens. See Exhibit R-1 S. The specified duties for Gallagher Township Supervisors are consistent
with those set forth in Section 607 of the Second Class Township Code. See 53 P.S. § 65607.
A comparison of the supervisor duties provided for by law with the duties for which McCoy
was billing and submitting timecards reveals that most, if not all, of these duties fall squarely
within the duties of a township supervisor identified in the Second Class Township Code and the
Gallagher Township Policy and Procedures Manual. It appears that McCoy attempted to change
this by advocating for the creation of a new position, working supervisor; however, this new
position was never adopted by the Township Supervisors. Therefore, it is largely irrelevant to the
allegations herein.
The Commission had an opportunity to examine a similar set of facts in R.H. v. State Ethics
Commission, 673 A.2d 1004, 1011-12 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996), in which the Commonwealth Court
concluded that the Commission was correct in finding a violation of the Ethics Act when one of
the appellants was receiving hourly wages for performing duties that were encompassed within the
established definition of supervisor as appellant was aware. There is nothing distinguishable about
the Court's decision in R.H. and the instant matter.
Although we find clear and convincing evidence that McCoy engaged in a prohibited
conflict of interest by using the authority of his office for the 1;=rivate pecuniary benefit of himself
when he billed the Township and received payment for performing administrative work he was
expected to complete in the regular course of his duties as an elected Supervisor, the issue of
restitution for this violation is moot given our determination pertaining to the initial conflict of
interest violation where we ordered restitution in the amount of $2,757,02.
McCoy makes several arguments regarding the conflict of interest allegations, none of
which is availing. McCoy's first argument that the Investigative Division failed to prove
McCoy, 23-0065-C
Page 18
intentional misconduct as required by Kistler is not persuasive. To the contrary, there is ample
evidence that McCoy acted with knowledge of a private pecuniary benefit as well as the motivation
to obtain that benefit for himself. At the time this occurred in early 2023, McCoy had been a
Township Supervisor since 2012 and had been the Chair of fhe Board since 2018. He also had
been employed as the Township Roadmaster since 2018, Certainly after 11 years of being a
Supervisor, five of which he served as Board Chair and Roadmaster, McCoy was well versed in
Township procedures, including the basic requirement of being formally appointed to an
employment position with wages formally set by the Board of Auditors. Despite an obvious
understanding of the requirements of being employed by the Township, while simultaneously
serving as a Township Supervisor, McCoy ignored the legal necessities of concurrent service in
favor of simply putting himself into a paying position without discussion or approval. McCoy's
intent has been clearly established.
McCoy raises as another potential defense to the conflict of interest allegations that he
should not be subject to payment of any restitution or other penalties because of the protection
afforded him by his reliance on the guidance provided by Solicitor Houser. McCoy asserts that
because he followed the Solicitor's instructions to do a retroactive employment appointment, then
he should be absolved of any potential conflict of interest violations. McCoy also claims that the
Solicitor's presence at the Board's meetings and his failure to identify wrongdoing on the part of
McCoy both constitute proper reliance on the Solicitor as set forth in Section 1109(g) of the Ethics
Act and absolve him of paying restitution.
The Investigative Division argues that McCoy cannot shield himself from a conflict of
interest violation or the imposition of restitution because Section 1109(g) of the Ethics Act only
provides a very specific defense for situations where public officials act in their official capacity
after having consulted with the political subdivision's solicitor, which did not occur here.
The Commission concurs with the Investigative Division that McCoy's argument is
misplaced. Section 1109(g) of the Ethics Act provides in pertinent part as follows;
§ 1109. Penalties
(g) ReIiance on solicitor's opinion. —A public official
of a political subdivision who acts in good faith reliance on a written,
nonconfidential opinion of the solicitor of the political subdivision
or upon an opinion of the solicitor of the political subdivision,
publicly stated at an open meeting of the political subdivision and
recorded in the official minutes of the meeting, shall not be subject
to the penalties provided for in subsections (a) and (b) (relating to
criminal penalties) nor for the treble damages provided for in
subsection (e),
65 Pa.C.S. § 1109(g).
The plain language of Section 1109(g) accords an exclusion from treble damages and the
criminal penalties in subsections (a) and (b) under very explicit and limited circumstances as to
McCoy, 23-0065-C
Page 19
the political subdivision solicitor vis-a-vis a written non -confidential opinion or an opinion
publicly stated at a meeting of the political subdivision and recorded in the official meeting
minutes. The record before us does not establish that either of those circumstances occurred here.
As such, McCoy cannot rely on Section 1109(g) as a proper defense.
Lastly, McCoy argues that the unique demands of the Township's rural setting and its
historical practices justify any inadvertent violations of the Ethics Act. While this Commission is
not unsympathetic to the unusual needs of a rural area versus a metropolitan area, this can in no
way serve as justification for violating the law by using the authority of public office for his own
private pecuniary benefit.
Section 1107(13) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1107(13), empowers this Commission to
order restitution in instances where a public official/public employee has obtained a financial gain
in violation of the Ethics Act, The Investigative Division asked for $3,432.81 in total restitution,
however, the evidentiary record, specifically the paystubs and timecards admitted as Exhibit ID-
3, supports a finding of restitution in the amount of $2,757.02. This amount represents the total
amount of net pay received by McCoy minus those occasions in which he received $75.00 for
meeting attendance. Based upon the foregoing findings and discussion, McCoy is ordered to make
payment of restitution in the amount of $2,757.02 payable to Gallagher Township and forwarded
to this Commission by no later than the thirtieth (30'h) day after the mailing date of this adjudication
and Order.
McCoy is directed to not accept any reimbursement, compensation, or other payment from
the Township representing a full or partial reimbursement of the aforesaid restitution.
Non-compliance will result in the institution of an order enforcement action.
IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
1. As a Member of the Board of Supervisors (`Board"), of Gallagher Township ("Township")
Clinton County, from 2012 to the present, Respondent William L. McCoy ("McCoy") was
a public official subject to the provisions of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act
("Ethics Act"), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq.
2. McCoy violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), as to the allegation
that he used the authority of his public office for the private pecuniary benefit of himself
when, absent appointment or authorization by the Township Board of Supervisors and/or
the Township Board of Auditors, he used his public office to assume a position of
employment with the Township and set his own scope and hours of work, receiving
compensation for same.
3. McCoy violated Section I I03(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), as to the allegation
that he used the authority of his public office for the private pecuniary benefit of himself
when he billed the Township and received payment for performing administrative work he
was expected to complete in the regular course of his duties as an elected Supervisor.
McCov, 23-0065-C
Page 20
Based upon the totality of the circumstances in this case, restitution in the total amount of
$2,757.02 is warranted.
In Re: William L. McCoy, File Docket: 23-0065-C
Respondent Date Decided: 9/18/25
Date Mailed: 9/22/25
ORDER NO. 1847
William L. McCoy ("McCoy"), as Member of the Board of Supervisors (`Board"), of
Gallagher Township ("Township") Clinton County, from 2012 to the present violated
Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), as to the allegation that he used
the authority of his public office for the private pecuniary benefit of himself when, absent
appointment or authorization by the Township Board of Supervisors and/or the Township
Board of Auditors, he used his public office to assume a position of employment with the
Township and set his own scope and hours of work, receiving compensation for same.
2. McCoy, as a Member of the Township Board of Supervisors, violated Section 1103(a) of
the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), as to the allegation that he used the authority of his
public office for the private pecuniary benefit of himself when he billed the Township and
received payment for performing administrative work he was expected to complete in the
regular course of his duties as an elected Supervisor.
3. McCoy is ordered to make payment of restitution in the amount of $2,757.02 payable to
Gallagher Township and forwarded to the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission by no
later than the thirtieth (30"') day after the mailing date of this Order,
4. McCoy is directed to not accept any reimbursement, compensation, or other payment from
the Township representing a full or partial reimbursement of the aforesaid restitution.
5. Non-compliance with Paragraph 3 or 4 of this Order will result in the initiation of an
appropriate enforcement action.
BY THE COMMISSION,
f
r
icliael A. Schwartz, Chair