HomeMy WebLinkAbout1357 MenzerIn Re: Ronald Eric Menzer
File Docket:
X -ref:
Date Decided:
Date Mailed:
Before: Louis W. Fryman, Chair
John J. Bolger, Vice Chair
Daneen E. Reese
Donald M. McCurdy
Paul M. Henry
Raquel K. Bergen
03 -063
Order No. 1357
2/28/05
3/14/05
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 not filed and a hearing was deemed 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Effective December 15, 1998, Act 9 of 1989 was repealed and replaced by Chapter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.
Menzer, 03 -063
Page 2
I. ALLEGATION:
That Ronald Eric Menzer, a public official /public employee, in his capacity as Economic
Development Director and Secretary to the York City Redevelopment Authority, violated
Sections 1103(a), and 1103(g) provisions of the State Ethics Act (Act 93 of 1998), 65
Pa.C.S. § §1103(a), and 1103(g) when he represented Wagman Construction Company
before the City and Redevelopment Authority within one year of leaving employment with
the City of York and Redevelopment Authority; and when he participated in the process of
approving City projects awarded to Wagman.
II. FINDINGS:
1. Ronald Eric Menzer was employed by the City of York as it's [sic] Economic
Development Director from 1994 through July 5, 2001.
a. Menzer also served as the Secretary of the City's Redevelopment Authority
from May 23, 2001 through June 13, 2001.
2. The City of York's position of Economic Development Director was the City's Chief
administrative position reporting directly to the Mayor.
a. The Economic Development Director had supervisory responsibility over all
city departments with the exception of police, fire and finance
b. The police, fire and finance departments reported directly to the Mayor.
c. The City of York operates by a strong Mayor weak council form of Government.
3. Minutes of the City of York's Redevelopment Authority's May 23, 2001 meeting
includes [sic] the following official action appointing Eric Menzer to the position of
authority secretary:
a. "Mr. Bacas moved to accept Leigh Smith's resignation as Secretary of the
Redevelopment Authority and to appoint Eric Menzer as the Authority's new
Secretary. Mrs. Johnson seconded. The motion passed unanimously."
Present: Henry Leader, Charles Bacas, Ellen Johnson, David Cross
Absent: Michael Black
4. As Secretary of the Redevelopment Authority Menzer was responsible for:
a. Being the authorized signatory for the Authority.
b. Other duties assigned by the Authority Board.
c. Menzer performed these services for only one month.
d. Menzer's service on the authority was simultaneous to his employment as
Economic Development Director.
5. Menzer served as Authority Secretary for less than one month and was replaced as
the Redevelopment Authority's Secretary during its June 13, 2001 meeting.
Minutes from that meeting include the following official action taken replacing
Menzer as Secretary:
a. "Mr. Leader made a motion to dismiss Eric Menzer as the Secretary and to
elect Andrew Dale as his replacement. The motion was seconded by Ms.
Johnson and was unanimously carried"
Present: Henry Leader, Ellen Johnson, Charles Bacas, Michael Black
Menzer, 03 -063
Page 3
Absent: David Cross
6. Menzer's removal as Redevelopment Authority Secretary was the result of Menzer
leaving the employ of the City of York.
7 Menzer resigned his city position to accept employment with Wagman Construction,
Inc.
8. Menzer has been employed as the Vice President of Real Estate for Wagman
Construction Inc., 3290 Susquehanna Trail North, York, PA 17405 since approximately
July 6, 2001.
a. Wagman Construction provides general construction and development
services.
b. Wagman Construction has experience in performing rehabilitation
renovation work as well as low to moderate income projects.
c. Wagman Construction's involvement in low to moderate income revitalization
projects and distressed property rehabilitation predates Menzer's
employment with Wagman.
d. Menzer is a salaried employee of Wagman.
9. As Vice President of Real Estate for Wagman Construction Menzer's general job
duties include negotiating contracts, signing documents and serving as the contact
person on Wagman projects.
a.
Menzer also is responsible for identifying potential development sites for
Wagman.
b. Menzer does not play a role in the actual construction phase of a project.
10. Wagman Construction was involved in construction projects directly or indirectly
involving the City of York several years prior to Menzer accepting employment in
July 2001.
11. Within three months after terminating employment with the City of York, Menzer
represented Wagman Construction and /or potential Wagman clients before the City
of York's Redevelopment Authority.
12. Menzer's representation of clients on behalf of Wagman Construction within one
year of leaving the City's employ related to a property at 44 West Market Street,
York.
13. 44 West Market Street, York, PA was the site of an old Woolworth's department
store.
a. This property has been in the redevelopment authority's inventory since
approximately June 11, 1999
b. Menzer took an active role in marketing this property as the City Economic
Development Director.
c. Menzer had regularly attended City Council and Redevelopment Authority
meetings in his official capacity as Economic Development Director.
Menzer, 03 -063
Page 4
1 This included making presentations to the authority regarding
potential investors or uses for the property.
14. Minutes from the City of York Redevelopment Authority meetings detail Menzer's
participation in the marketing and proposed development of 44 West Market Street
initially as a City Economic Development Director and later as an employee of
Wagman Construction as follows:
Presentations to Authority as Economic Development Director:
a. 05/12/99: Item V Staff Reports
1. Staff updated the members on the Woolworth's property.
b. 01/12/00 44 West Market Street — Joyce Frey Proposal — The
developers propose to convert the structure to a food court
and restaurant facility. They expect to spend up to $400,000
in renovation costs. Authority members questioned Joyce
Frey, James Williams, the architect and Ron Perry and Jordan
Kriner, the partners of the venture. The authority entered into
a sixty (60) day option agreement with Design Concepts
Unlimited LP granting the option to purchases the property for
$60,000. Resolution No. 3758.
c. 04/12/00: V — Staff Reports
G. Woolworth Building — There is no recent discussion.
The option expired. There have been the occasional
phone calls but nothing really definite is occurring at
present.
d. 04/11/01 Proposal for 44 W. Market Street by John Woodward & Chris
Tillotson had a meeting w /Eric Menzer & Leigh Smith on March
23, 2001, to go over their proposal. A presentation was made
to the board. Tillotson and Woodward have clients looking for
buildings. They propose to develop only the first floor at this
time.
e. 05/23/01 44 W. Market Street Sheldon Lloyd
Wanted it for classic auto museum
60 day option granted resolution 3833
(07/05/01 Eric Menzer's last day as Economic Development Director)
Within one year of leaving office Menzer made appearances to the Redevelopment
Authority as follows, on behalf of Waltman:
f. 09/12/01 IX Woolworth Building 44 Market Street
Mr. Sheldon Lloyd is not doing the antique car museum.
Wagman is suggesting a proposal which was received via a
letter dated September 11, 2001. Mr. Menzer on behalf of
Wagman will be making a presentation at the next meeting
g. 10/10/01 IV 44 West Market Street Woolworth — option request
"Mr. Eric Menzer appeared for Wagman Construction. Mr.
Cross stated that he will be disqualified from participation in
discussion of this matter and will abstain from voting. Mr.
Menzer advised that the plan is to have a retail use which the
authority has been consistent about for several years.
Unfortunately it is the wrong size for retail use, being either too
big for some or too small for others. By proposing the front be
Menzer, 03 -063
Page 5
for retail use and the back for office to support the renovation
costs, a moderate level office use is expected to be the best
use. They are asking for a one -year option at the asking price
of $75,000.00. Wagman will market the property under three
(3) considerations.
First evidence of a tenant lease or renovate the front for retail
within 180 days; second if there is a lease to office space, the
office tenant must be for profit. This would be 24 months from
settlement since it is a KOZ site and three they will present
monetary security to avoid restrictions on the deed. They
expect a $30.00 square foot rehab cost, and a $6.00 square
foot base rent. Alternative plans were all reviewed. Mrs.
Johnson asked about the second floor plans were reviewed.
The property is not in good condition in that area, but the
second floor is part of the overall plan. Mrs. Johnson moved to
grant the option. Mr. Bacas seconded. The motion passed
unanimously 3 -0 with Mr. Leader and Mr. Cross both
abstaining.
Resolution 3864
15. As of July 6, 2002, One year after Menzer left the employment of the City of York,
Wagman's interest in the Woolworth's building continued.
16. Menzer's actions relating to 44 Market Street, York as an employee of Wagman
Construction within one year of leaving the City's employment consisted of making
a presentation before the Redevelopment Authority on October 10, 2001.
a. This presentation occurred approximately three (3) months after leaving the
City's employ and terminating his position on the Redevelopment Authority.
b. Menzer specifically appeared on behalf of Wagman Construction presenting
a proposal by Wagman Construction to renovate the building into a combination
of retail and office space.
c. Menzer said Wagman Construction was requesting a one -year option at the
asking price of $75,000.00.
d. The Redevelopment Authority accepted the Wagman Construction proposal
on October 10, 2001. (See Finding 24h)
17. Wagman Construction's one year option on this property expired without any
development occurring.
a. An option on the property gave Wagman Construction exclusive rights to
market the property during the option period.
b. Wagman Construction subsequently worked with Marie Wiley /Wiley Family
Entertainment proposing an edutainment center for adults and children.
c. This project did not come to fruition.
18. Menzer did not appear before York City Council on any issue relating to 44 Market
Street, York within one year of leaving the City's employ. (June 5, 2001 — June 5,
2002)
19. Menzer in his official capacity as Economic Development Director took an active
role on the City's part in the development of property known as the "smokestack
Menzer, 03 -063
Page 6
track" which was developed by Susquehanna Pfaltzgraff /Creekside Investors as the
Susquehanna Commerce Center.
20. City involvement with Susquehanna Pfaltzgraff dates back to at least February of
1998.
a. The project itself evolved into two (2), six (6) story office buildings,
renovation of the former Columbia Gas building, a parking garage and
several surface parking lots.
b. This project went before both the redevelopment Authority and City Council
for review and approval.
c. As Economic Development Director, Menzer actively participated in this
review process.
21. City of York Redevelopment Authority records include discussion on the
"smokestack tract" which ultimately ended up being developed by Susquehanna
Pfaltzgraff.
22. Redevelopment Authority meeting minutes confirm various discussions on this
parcel between February 11, 1998 and March 13, 2002.
23. Redevelopment Authority meeting minutes confirm Wagman Construction was
involved with the Susquehanna Pfaltzgraff site prior to Menzer leaving the city's
employ.
a. Wagman Construction also performed additional work at the site after they
hired Menzer.
b. This work was valued in excess of $100,000.
24. Menzer did not represent Wagman before the Redevelopment Authority on this
project within one year of leaving the City's employ or serving as Redevelopment
Authority Secretary. (June 5, 2001 — June 5, 2002)
a. All appearances were made by either Jack Kay or Tim Fulton employees of
Susquehanna Pfaltzgraff.
25. In addition to review and approvals from the Redevelopment Authority, the
Susquehanna Pfaltzgraff project was discussed and acted upon during City Council
meetings between September 19, 2000 and June 19, 2001 while Menzer was
employed by the City.
26. After Menzer left the employment of the City of York, Council continued to take
actions to approve the Susquehanna Pfaltzgraff Project.
27. As Economic Development Director for the City of York, Menzer participated in
actions regarding upgrades to the sewer system for Susquehanna Pfaltzgraff.
a. By way of correspondence dated January 3, 2001, to Jack R. Kay, Vice
President, Real Estate, Susquehanna Pfaltzgraff Co., Menzer outlined the
City's commitment to the project.
b. Menzer informed Susquehanna Pfaltzgraff "that the City of York will bear the
responsibility for replacement and upgrade of certain city -owned utilities that
run through the Susquehanna Commerce Center site and the Creekside
Investors will pay for any cost of that work in excess of $100,000."
Menzer, 03 -063
Page 7
c. Menzer detailed the following services to be provided by the City.
*upgrade /replace the 48- inches storm water line that runs in the abandoned
Gas Alley right -of -way between Grant Street and the Codorus Creek, and
*add an additional manhole to the sanitary sewer interceptor that runs
generally north -south across a portion of the site.
It is our understanding that engineering for these two items has been
substantially completed and that you have received competitive bids for this
work. Pending confirmation that the engineering work is appropriate and
that the solicitation of bids was appropriately fair and open to meet our
public- entity requirements, it is our intention to have this work performed by
the same contractor that will be doing all of the site work for the
Susquehanna Commerce Center project.
28. On 06/29/01 Mayor Robertson signed a memo of understanding for this project.
The actual agreement was entered into between the City of York and Creekside
Investors /Susquehanna Pfaltzgraff Company. Jack Kay, VP Real Estate for
Susquehanna Pfaltzgraft [sic] signed the agreement on behalf of the company.
a. Menzer negotiated the agreement which committed the City to pay for sewer
work totaling up to $100,000.
b. This agreement was finalized approximately one (1) week prior to Menzer
leaving the City of York's employment.
29. Menzer actively was involved with the Susquehanna Commerce Center project as
the City's Economic Development Director.
a. Menzer did not appear before the Redevelopment Authority or City Council
on the Suscom project within one year of leaving the City's employ (07/05/01
— 07/05/02).
b. All appearances were made by Jack Kay and Tim Fulton employees of
Susquehanna Pfaltzgraff.
30. Wagman Construction's involvement with the Susquehanna Commerce Center
predated Menzer's employment by almost two years.
a. Wagman Construction also had a prior business relationship with Susquehanna
Pfaltzgraff /Susquehanna Real Estate dating back to at least the early 1990's.
b. Jack R. Kay, President and CEO of Susquehanna Real Estate, a Division of
Susquehanna Pfaltzgraff Co. also sat on the Board of Directors of Wagman
Construction.
31. Menzer did not work on the Susquehanna Commerce Center project as an
employee of Wagman Construction within one year of leaving the City's employ.
a. Menzer's duties for Wagman do not relate to the construction phase of this
project.
(The following findings relate to Menzer's involvement with the Historic Fairmount
Project.)
Menzer, 03 -063
Page 8
32. Menzer in his official capacity as Economic Development Director had general
supervisory responsibility over the City's Historic Fairmount Project.
a. Housing Services and Redevelopment Authority Director Leigh Smith was
the city employee responsible for the project.
33. The City's Historic Fairmount Project is a scattered site rehabilitation covering the
300, 400 and 500 blocks of north Beaver Street, York PA.
a. Funding sources for this project included the Pennsylvania Housing Finance
Agency and the United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD).
b. City departments including City Council, Housing Services and the
Redevelopment Authority played roles in the planning and development
phases of this project.
c. City Council and the Redevelopment Authority acquired properties on North
Beaver Street to be used for the project.
d. The Housing Services Department was involved in assisting with finding [sic]
sources and project scope.
34. City activities on the Historic Fairmount Project date back to at least November of
1998.
a. The City's intent with the project was to eliminate urban blight on Beaver
Street.
35. York City Redevelopment Authority Meeting Minutes confirm discussions and
official actions on the Historic Fairmount Project AKA Beaver Street Project
between November 11, 1998 and February 7, 2001 while Menzer was employed by
the City.
36. Other discussions and actions by the Authority occurred between May 8, 2002 and
March 10, 2004.
a. Menzer did not make any appearances or presentations on behalf of
Wagman at any of these meetings.
37. York City Council Meeting Minutes for April 6, 1999 confirm approval of Resolution
No. 72, Session 1999, authorizing the City to submit the Section 108 application to
HUD to use the Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program funds in the amount of
$3,000,000 for the purpose of addressing priority community development and
housing needs as identified in the City's Consolidated Plan.
a. This resolution related to the Historic Fairmount Project.
b. Menzer participated in the meeting, as a city employee.
38. City Council had discussions and took actions on the Historic Fairmount Project
after Menzer left City employment.
39. Menzer, as an employee of Wagman Construction, did not appear before City
Council or the City's redevelopment Authority on the Historic Fairmount Project
between July 5, 2001 and July 5, 2002, one -year after leaving City employment.
Menzer, 03 -063
Page 9
40. York City records related to Historic Fairmount project confirm the following
regarding Wagman's interest and participation in the project:
a. On or about February 28, 2002, Larry Richardson, Director, YMCA, faxed a
letter to Robyn Liggins Smith regarding Wagman's interest in the project
which noted, in part:
"Following is a letter of interest from Wagman when we began
working with them on the Scattered Site project. Official
engagement of Wagman for the Beaver Street Project
occurred on May 1, 2001, when I introduced Jim Shultz of
HDC to Joe Wagman and Dave Cross from Wagman
Construction. At that time, we had yet to receive tax credits for
the Scattered site project. We did receive them, contracted
with Wagman and, as you know, closed and began
construction in September 2001.
b. City Council Resolution 21 of 2002 adopted January 22, 2002, authorizes
project funding for the Historic Fairmount project through the City's
participation in the Federal Community Development Block Grant Program
and Federal HOME program. Passed by a 5 -0 vote of council with
Councilman Smallwood, Texter, Bacas, Musso and Smith all in favor.
c. A pre - development and funding agreement for the project was entered into
on February 1, 2002, between Housing Development Corporation of
Lancaster County, Y Community Development Corporation and the
Redevelopment Authority of the City of York. The agreement designates
HDC and YCDC as the project developers. The developer is obligated to
comply with all applicable rules and regulations pertaining to the CDBG
program and HOME program issued by HUD. This agreement does not list
or include Wagman Construction. Wagman was hired as the project's
general contractor.
d. On February 27, 2002, Eric Menzer, in his capacity as vice president of real
estate of Wagman Construction submitted a cost analysis detail to the Y
Community Development Corporation for historic tax credit. The cost
analysis relates to categories including windows, doors, exterior trim and
siding and interior trim. Total cost changes are identified as $558,656.
1. This document was submitted to YCDC who [sic] provided copies to
the City of York.
e. On March 1, 2002, Housing Development Corporation/YorkYCDC submitted
an application to the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency for the Historic
Fairmount Apartments, York. The application itself is twenty -four (24) pages
in length. Specifically listed is Wagman Construction, 3290 Susquehanna
Trail North, York, PA 17405 -7076. Eric Menzer is listed as the contact
person with contact information including phone, (717) 767 -8311, and an e-
mail address of emenzer@waqman.com.
41. The Y- Development Corporation in conjunction with the Housing Development
Corporation of Lancaster partnered to serve as the Developer on the Historic
Fairmount Project after being selected through a request for Proposal process
handled by York Housing Services Director Leigh Smith in May and June 2000.
42. Larry Richardson, President /CEO of the YMCA of York and York County/Y-
Development Corporation was the contact person who appeared before the City of
Menzer, 03 -063
Page 10
York.
a. Richardson selected Wagman Construction to serve as the project general
contractor.
b. Richardson had a previous business relationship with Wagman Construction
on a similar rehabilitation project on the 200 and 300 blocks of West Market
Street.
1. Richardson wanted to use Wagman Construction on the Historic
Fairmount Project since Wagman previously completed the West
Market Street project on time and on budget.
2. Wagman Construction expressed its interest in serving as the project
general contractor on December 11, 2000 approximately six (6)
months prior to Menzer being employed by Wagman.
3. Neither Wagman nor Menzer made presentations directly to City
Council.
43. On November 12, 2003, Historic Fairmount Associates, LP, entered into an
agreement with the City of York for project funding. The agreement itself was
signed by Larry Richards, President of YCDC and John Benner, Mayor. Funding
was detailed as follows:
Source Amount
CDBG /Home Program $1,050,000
PHFA $1,140,000
Borrower $3,770,000 cash equity
44. Wagman Construction did not enter into a formal agreement to serve as the project
general contractor until March 18, 2004.
a. Wagman Construction was officially engaged to serve as the projects
contractor as a result of a planning meeting held on May 1, 2001.
b. David Cross and Joseph Wagman represented Wagman Construction at this
meeting.
c. Erick Menzer was not party to this meeting in any capacity.
45. Wagman Construction performed preliminary project work without compensation
from May 1, 2001 until March 18, 2004.
a. No funds were provided to Wagman Construction until the Y- Community
Development Corporation (YCDC) closed on a Pennsylvania Housing
Finance Administration loan May 18, 2004.
b. No payments were made to Wagman Construction, by the YCDC, during
Menzer's first year of employment with Wagman.
c. Wagman Construction had an expectation of payment for services rendered
on the project prior to the YCDC receiving PHFA funding.
46. Menzer's involvement with the Historic Fairmount Project as an employee of
Wagman Construction within one year of leaving the City's employ included the
following:
a. Preparing a detailed cost analysis for historic tax credit dated February 27,
Menzer, 03 -063
Page 11
2002 which was submitted to the YCDC. (see finding 40(d)).
b. Serving as the projects contact person on behalf of Wagman Construction
on the March 1, 2002 PHFA loan application.
1. This application did not require any city approval.
47. Menzer's continued participation in the Historic Fairmount Project as an employee
of Wagman Construction within one year and after leaving the City's employ was
the subject of a HUD conflict of interest inquiry.
48. By way of correspondence dated December 2, 2002, HUD determined that a conflict
of interest did exist on the part of Eric Menzer and requested additional information
from the city before determining whether an exception can be granted. Joyce M.
Gaskins, Director, Office of Community Planning & Development for HUD, provided
the following explanation for her conclusion that a conflict of interest exists.
"After reviewing this information, we have determined that a conflict of
interest does exist, in that Mr. Menzer was still in the employ of the City of
York and was responsible for overseeing CDBG activity, during the RFP
process for selection of the developer — Housing Development Corporation
of Lancaster County and YMCA Community Development Corporation which
plans to contract the services of Wagman Construction, Mr. Menzer's current
employer.
The information provided confirms the RFP was issued on May 22, 2000,
was due on June 19, 2000, and the anticipated selection date was June 30,
2000. Mr. Menzer left the employ of the City of York on July 5, 2001, and the
agreement between the developer and the City was issued on February 12,
2002. Thus, Mr. Menzer was in a position, where he was directly involved in
the selection process.
Relative to the exception request, before such a request can be considered,
the City needs to provide the information required at 570.611(d)(1) and (2).
The information provided in the letter, dated September 24, 2002, does not
meet the public disclosure threshold, as it does not include a description of
how the public disclosure was made. In addition, any request must address
the "Factors to be considered for exceptions.'"'
49. HUD ruled that Menzer's continued involvement in the project as an employee of
Wagman Construction within one year of leaving the City's employ constituted a
conflict of interest.
a. HUD did not cite any individual action on Menzer's part which constituted a
conflict of interest, only his continued involvement in the project as an
employee of Wagman Construction.
b. HUD took no action on this issue determining that any sanctions against
Wagman Construction or the Y- Community Development Corporation would
negatively impact progress on the project including delaying completion and
increasing costs.
50. On March 19, 2003, Larry Richardson, President of the Y Community Development
Corporation, sent a letter to Joyce Gaskin, Director, Office of Community Planning
and Development, U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development requesting a
conflict exception in relation to Wagman Construction's involvement in the project
due to Menzer's prior employment with the City of York. Richardson's exception
request was based on the following criteria:
Menzer, 03 -063
Page 12
a. Wagman has specific expertise and capacity for low- income, historic,
scattered site rehab projects. They have a relationship with the developer
that has proven to bring projects in on budget and on time with a high level
of quality. At this time, to engage another contractor, would be of significant
cost to the project and produce undue harm to the clients we will serve in
this project, which are at 40 %, 50% and 60% of median income in York.
b. We responded to an open RFP with the City to become the developers for
the project. We did not send out an RFP for a contractor for the project. For
that matter, we did not issue an RFP for architectural, legal or relocation
services either. Simply, these projects are very complicated and a great
deal of comfort must exist between the project team members. Each
member also needs to have special expertise in low income and historic tax
credit projects.
c. Contractors are regulated as to the amount they can realize in both
overhead and profit due to the funding sources. This issue prevents many
contractors from attempting such projects. In a previous project we
completed, we sent out RFP's and received four interested contractors. As
each began to realize these restrictions, they dropped out one by one. We
were left with one contractor that struggled to bring the project in on budget.
d. This particular project has been attempted on two other occasions by other
developers and has failed. We have put together a team that through
expertise; teamwork; passion for quality, affordable low income housing;
and a track record of completing such projects on time and on budget; is
poised to move forward. We are on the cusp of being funded and need to be
prepared to move swiftly to close on the project and begin construction.
51. On April 2, 2003, Assistant Solicitor Hoyt requested an exception under 24 CFR
570.611(d). Solicitor Hoyt provided in part, the following reasons for requesting the
exception:
(2) (i) The exception would provide a significant cost benefit and an essential
degree of expertise to the project that would otherwise not be available.
Enclosed with this letter is a letter form YCDC indicating why.
(11) While the original RFP request in May 2000 was open (and during Mr.
Menzer's employment with the City), YCDC and HDC have not engaged in
an open competitive bidding or negotiation process for the reasons set forth
in the YCDC letter.
(iii) While the person affected by the conflict, Mr. Menzer, is not a member
of such class, the real persons affected by this exception are members of a
group or class intended to be the beneficiaries of the activity and the
exception will permit them to receive generally the same interests or benefits
as are being made available to others, as set forth in the YCDC letter.
(iv) Mr. Menzer has withdrawn from his function or responsibilities
because he left his employment with the City on July 5, 2001, and was not
involved in the City's contract with YCDC and HDC on February 1, 2002.
(v) The interest or benefit (YCDC's desire to use Wagman Construction
stemmed from its relationship from the Market Street project in early 2000)
existed before the City sent out RFP's, thus before Mr. Menzer was in a
position to do anything about it.
Menzer, 03 -063
Page 13
(vi) Undue hardship will result to the recipients when weighed against the
public interest served, as set forth in the YCDC letter enclosed.
(vii) While Mr. Menzer was involved in the preliminary selection process
from mid 2000 until he retired in mid 2001, he was not involved in the final
agreement to select YCDC and HDC in February 2002, and certainly was not
involved in YCDC /HDC's desire to use Wagman Construction on this project.
(b) This project will utilize low income tax credits and result in regulated
profit margins, and has significant strictures on construction methods as well,
which is why so few contractors are will to do this work, as discussed in
YCDC's letter.
52. On July 31, 2003, HUD informed the City that a conflict of interest exception will be
granted for the following reasons:
Reasons:
1. The failure to approve the request would further delay the provision of
affordable housing for low income persons, and thus, cause an undue
hardship on persons the community development block grant program is to
primarily benefit.
2. To engage another contractor would be of significant additional cost to the
project; and
3. Contractors involved in low- income housing and historic tax credit projects
are regulated as to the amount they can realize in both overhead and profit,
due to the funding sources.
53. Menzer represented Wagman Constructions interests before the City of York
Redevelopment Authority within one year of leaving office on 44 Market Street, York
(former Woolworth site)
a. Menzer's proposal did not come to fruition creating no financial gain for
Wagman Construction.
54. Menzer did not represent Wagman Construction interests before the City of York
within one year of leaving office on the Historic Fairmount Project or the
Susquehanna Conference Center.
a. Wagman Construction served as contractor on both projects.
b. Menzer prepared and submitted a detailed cost analysis for historic tax
credit dated February 27, 2002 which was submitted to YCDC and provided
to the City.
1. Wagman contracted with YCDC.
c. Menzer is listed as project contact person for Wagman on PHFA loan
applications for the Historic Fairmount Projects.
55. Menzer played no role in the Susquehanna Commerce Center project on behalf of
Wagman Construction.
56. Menzer was a salaried employee of Wagman Construction and did not receive any
additional compensation as a result of any involvement in the Susquehanna
Menzer, 03 -063
Page 14
Commerce Center and Historic Fairmount Projects or proposals for 44 Market
Street, York.
III. DISCUSSION:
At all times relevant to this matter, the Respondent, Ronald Eric Menzer, hereinafter
Menzer, has been a public employee subject to the provisions of the Public Official and
Employee Ethics Law, Act 9 of 1989, Pamphlet Law 26, 65 P.S. § 401, et seq., as codified
by the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act, Act 93 of 1998, Chapter 11, 65 Pa.C.S. §
1101 et seq., which Acts are referred to herein as the "Ethics Act."
The allegations are that Menzer, as Economic Development Director of the City of
York (City) and Secretary to the York City Redevelopment Authority (Authority), violated
Sections 1103(a) and 1103(g) of the Ethics Act when he represented Wagman
Construction Company before the City and Authority within one year of leaving public
employment; and when he participated in the process of approving City projects awarded
to Wagman.
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 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 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.
§ 1103. Restricted activities
(g) Former official or employee. - -No former public
official or public employee shall represent a person, with
promised or actual compensation, on any matter before the
governmental body with which he has been associated for one
year after he leaves that body.
65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(g) (Emphasis added).
Menzer, 03 -063
Page 15
Under Section 1103(g) of the Ethics Act, a former public official /public employee is
prohibited from representing a person for compensation on any matter before the
governmental body with which he was associated for a period of one year after he leaves
that body. The terms "governmental body ", "person ", and "represent" are defined in the
Ethics Law as follows:
Section 1102. Definitions
"Governmental body." Any department, authority,
commission, committee, council, board, bureau, division,
service, office, officer, administration, legislative body, or other
establishment in the Executive, Legislative or Judicial Branch
of a state, a nation or a political subdivision thereof or any
agency performing a governmental function.
"Person." A business, governmental body, individual,
corporation, union, association, firm, partnership, committee,
club or other organization or group of persons.
"Represent." To act on behalf of any other person in
any activity which includes, but is not limited to, the following:
personal appearances, negotiations, lobbying and submitting
bid or contract proposals which are signed by or contain the
name of a former public official or public employee.
65 Pa. C. S. § 1102.
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.
Menzer was employed by the City as its Economic Development Director from 1994
through July 5, 2001, and as the Secretary of the Authority from May 23, 2001, through
June 13, 2001. Menzer held the City's Chief administrative position and reported directly
to the Mayor. Menzer had supervisory responsibility over all city departments with the
exception of police, fire and finance.
Minutes of the Authority for the May 23, 2001, meeting reflect official action
appointing Menzer to the position of Authority Secretary. Menzer was the Authority
Secretary for less than one month and was replaced during its June 13, 2001, meeting. As
Secretary of the Authority Menzer was the authorized signatory for the Authority and was
responsible for duties as assigned by the Authority Board. Menzer was removed as
Authority Secretary because he terminated employment with the City.
Menzer resigned his City position to accept employment with Wagman
Construction, Inc. as the Vice President of Real Estate. Wagman Construction provides
general construction and development services, performs rehabilitation renovation work
and low to moderate income projects. Menzer, as Vice President of Real Estate for
Wagman Construction, is a salaried employee with general job duties that include
negotiating contracts, signing documents and serving as the contact person on Wagman
projects. Although Menzer is responsible for identifying potential development sites for
Wagman, he does not play a role in the actual construction phase of projects. Wagman
Construction was involved in construction projects directly or indirectly involving the City
several years prior to Menzer's acceptance of employment in July 2001.
Within three months after terminating employment with the City, Menzer
Menzer, 03 -063
Page 16
represented Wagman Construction or potential Wagman clients before the Authority.
Menzer's representation of clients on behalf of Wagman Construction within one year of
leaving City employment related to a property at 44 West Market Street, York. That
property has been in the Authority's inventory since approximately June 11, 1999. Menzer
took an active role in marketing that property as the City Economic Development Director.
Menzer regularly attended City Council and Authority meetings in his official capacity as
Economic Development Director. The foregoing included making presentations to the
Authority regarding either potential investors or uses for the property. Minutes from the
Authority meetings detail Menzer's participation in the marketing and proposed
development of 44 West Market Street initially as a City Economic Development Director
and later as an employee of Wagman Construction. See, Fact Finding 14. Within one
year of leaving public employment, Menzer made appearances before the Authority on
behalf of Wagman. Id.
As to the 44 Market Street, York Project, Menzer, as an employee of Wagman
Construction, made a presentation before the Authority on October 10, 2001,
approximately three months after leaving the City's employ and terminating his position on
the Authority. Menzer specifically appeared on behalf of Wagman Construction and
presented a proposal by Wagman Construction to renovate the building into a combination
of retail and office space. Menzer stated that Wagman Construction was seeking a one -
year option at the asking price of $75,000.00. The Authority accepted the Wagman
Construction proposal on October 10, 2001. Wagman Construction's one year option on
the property expired without any action having occurred.
Menzer in his official capacity as Economic Development Director took an active
role in the development of another property known as the "smokestack track" which was
developed by Susquehanna Pfaltzgraff /Creekside Investors as the Susquehanna
Commerce Center. The project evolved into two, six -story office buildings, renovation of
the former Columbia Gas building, a parking garage and several surface parking lots. This
project was submitted to both the Authority and City Council for review and approval. As
Economic Development Director, Menzer actively participated in the review process.
Authority records include discussions on the "smokestack tract" which was ultimately
developed by Susquehanna Pfaltzgraff. Authority meeting minutes confirm various
discussions on this parcel and Wagman Construction's involvement with the Susquehanna
Pfaltzgraff site prior to Menzer leaving City employment. Menzer did not represent
Wagman before the Authority on the project within one year of leaving the City's employ or
the Authority as its Secretary. See, Fact Findings 54, 55. All appearances were made by
employees of Susquehanna Pfaltzgraff.
In addition to the review and approvals from the Authority, the Susquehanna
Pfaltzgraff project was discussed and acted upon during City Council meetings between
September 19, 2000, and June 19, 2001, while Menzer was employed by the City. As
Economic Development Director for the City of York, Menzer participated in actions
regarding upgrades to the sewer system for Susquehanna Pfaltzgraff. Menzer informed
Susquehanna Pfaltzgraff that the City of York will bear the responsibility for replacement
and upgrade of certain city -owned utilities that run through the Susquehanna Commerce
Center site and the Creekside Investors will pay for any cost of that work in excess of
$100,000." On June 29, 2001, the Mayor signed a memo of understanding for this project.
The actual agreement was entered into between the City and Creekside Investors/
Susquehanna Pfaltzgraff Company. Menzer negotiated the agreement which committed
the City to pay for sewer work totaling up to $100,000. This agreement was finalized
approximately one week prior to Menzer leaving employment with the City.
Menzer had active involvement with the Susquehanna Commerce Center project as
the City's Economic Development Director. Menzer did not appear before the Authority or
City Council on the "Suscom" (Fact Finding 29) project within one year of leaving the City's
employ. Menzer did not work on the Susquehanna Commerce Center project as an
Menzer, 03 -063
Page 17
employee of Wagman Construction within one year of leaving the City's employ. Menzer's
duties for Wagman did not relate to the construction phase of this project.
Separate and apart from the above, Menzer, as Economic Development Director,
had general supervisory responsibility over the City's Historic Fairmount Project. Funding
sources for this project included the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency and the United
States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). City departments including
City Council, Housing Services and the Authority played roles in the planning and
development phases of this project. City Council and the Authority acquired properties on
North Beaver Street to be used for the project. The Housing Services Department assisted
with funding sources and the scope of the project. The City's intent with the project was to
eliminate urban blight on Beaver Street. Authority Meeting Minutes confirm discussions
and official actions on the Historic Fairmount Project AKA Beaver Street Project between
November 11, 1998, and February 7, 2001, while Menzer was employed by the City.
Other discussions and actions by the Authority occurred between May 8, 2002, and March
10, 2004. Menzer did not make any appearances or presentations on behalf of Wagman
at any of these meetings after he left City employment.
City Council Meeting Minutes for April 6, 1999, confirm approval of Resolution No.
72, Session 1999, authorizing the City to submit the Section 108 application to HUD to use
the Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program funds in the amount of $3,000,000 for the
purpose of addressing priority community development and housing needs as identified in
the City's Consolidated Plan. This resolution related to the Historic Fairmount Project.
Menzer participated in the meeting as a City employee. City Council had discussions and
took actions on the Historic Fairmount Project after Menzer left City employment. Menzer,
as an employee of Wagman Construction, did not appear before City Council or the
Authority on the Historic Fairmount Project between July 5, 2001, and July 5, 2002, that is,
within one -year after leaving City employment.
City records as to the Historic Fairmount project reflect Wagman's interest and
participation in the project: on or about February 28, 2002, Larry Richardson, Director,
YMCA, faxed a letter regarding Wagman's interest in the project which noted, in part: ".. .
Official engagement of Wagman for the Beaver Street Project occurred on May 1, 2001. .
.. At that time, we had yet to receive tax credits for the Scattered site project. We did
receive them, contracted with Wagman and closed and began construction in September
2001. A pre - development and funding agreement for the project was entered into on
February 1, 2002, between Housing Development Corporation of Lancaster County, YCDC
and the Redevelopment Authority of the City of York. The agreement designates HDC and
YCDC as the project developers. . Wagman was hired as the project's general
contractor. On February 27, 2002, Menzer, in his capacity as vice president of real estate
of Wagman Construction submitted a cost analysis detail to the Y Community
Development Corporation for historic tax credit...." This document was submitted to
YCDC which provided copies to the City.
On March 1, 2002, Housing Development Corporation/York YCDC submitted an
application to the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency for the Historic Fairmount
Apartments, York. Wagman Construction was specifically listed with Menzer as the
contact person. The Y- Development Corporation in conjunction with the Housing
Development Corporation of Lancaster partnered to serve as the Developer on the Historic
Fairmount Project after being selected through a request for proposal process handled by
the York Housing Services Director in mid -2000. Wagman Construction expressed its
interest in serving as the project general contractor on December 11, 2000 approximately
six months prior to Menzer being employed by Wagman. Neither Wagman nor Menzer
made presentations directly to City Council. On November 12, 2003, Historic Fairmount
Associates, LP, entered into an agreement with the City for project funding. The
agreement was signed by the President of YCDC and the Mayor.
Menzer, 03 -063
Page 18
Wagman Construction did not enter into a formal agreement to serve as the project
general contractor until March 18, 2004. Wagman Construction was officially engaged to
serve as the project contractor as a result of a planning meeting held on May 1, 2001.
David Cross and Joseph Wagman represented Wagman Construction at this meeting.
Menzer was not party to this meeting in any capacity.
Wagman Construction performed the preliminary project work from May 1, 2001,
until March 18, 2004, without compensation. No funds were provided to Wagman
Construction until the Y- Community Development Corporation (YCDC) closed on a
Pennsylvania Housing Finance Administration loan May 18, 2004. No payments were
made to Wagman Construction by YCDC during Menzer's first year of employment with
Wagman. Wagman Construction had an expectation of payment for services rendered on
the project prior to the YCDC receiving PHFA funding. Menzer's involvement with the
Historic Fairmount Project as an employee of Wagman Construction within one year of
leaving the City's employ included the following: preparing a detailed cost analysis for
historic tax credit dated February 27, 2002, which was submitted to the YCDC, and serving
as the project contact person on behalf of Wagman Construction on the March 1, 2002,
PHFA loan application. The application did not require any City approval.
Menzer's participation in the Historic Fairmount Project as an employee of Wagman
Construction was the subject of a HUD conflict of interest inquiry. By letter dated
December 2, 2002, HUD determined that a conflict of interest existed on the part of Menzer
and requested additional information from the City before determining whether an
exception could be granted. HUD ruled that Menzer's continued involvement in the project
as an employee of Wagman Construction within one year of leaving the City's employ
constituted a conflict of interest. HUD did not cite any individual action on Menzer's part
which constituted a conflict of interest, only his continued involvement in the project as an
employee of Wagman Construction. On March 19, 2003, the President of the YCDC, sent
a letter requesting a conflict exception in relation to Wagman Construction's involvement in
the project, due to Menzer's prior employment with the City.
On July 31, 2003, HUD informed the City that a conflict of interest exception would
be granted for the following reasons: the failure to approve the request would further delay
the provision of affordable housing for low income persons; the engagement of another
contractor would be a significant additional cost to the project; and contractors involved in
low- income housing and historic tax credit projects are regulated as to the amount they
can realize in both overhead and profit.
Menzer represented Wagman Construction's interests as to the 44 Market Street,
York project, before the Authority within one year of leaving office. Menzer's proposal did
not come to fruition creating no financial gain for Wagman Construction. Wagman
Construction served as contractor on both the Historic Fairmount Project and the
Susquehanna Conference Center projects. Menzer prepared and submitted a detailed
cost analysis for historic tax credit dated February 27, 2002, which was submitted to YCDC
and provided to the City. See, Fact Finding 40.d. Wagman contracted with YCDC.
Menzer is listed as project contact person for Wagman on PHFA loan applications for the
Historic Fairmount Projects. See, Fact Finding 46.b.
Menzer, as a salaried employee of Wagman Construction, did not receive any
additional compensation as a result of any involvement in the Susquehanna Commerce
Center and Historic Fairmount Projects or the proposal for 44 Market Street, York. Menzer
played no role in the Susquehanna Commerce Center project on behalf of Wagman
Construction. Menzer did not represent Wagman Construction interests before the City
within one year of leaving office on the Historic Fairmount Project or the Susquehanna
Conference Center. See, Fact Finding 54.
Menzer, 03 -063
Page 19
Having highlighted the Stipulated Findings and issues before us, we shall now apply
the Ethics Act to determine the proper disposition of this case.
The parties' Consent Agreement sets forth a proposed resolution of the allegations.
The Consent Agreement proposes that this Commission find:
"a. That no violation of Section 1103(a) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Law,
65 Pa.C.S. §1103(a) occurred in relation to Menzer's participation in the process of
approving city projects awarded to Wagman Construction Company.
b. That an unintentional violation of Section 1103(g) of the Public Official and
Employee Ethics Law, 65 Pa.C.S. §1103(g) occurred in relation to Menzer's
representation of Wagman Construction Company, on one occasion, before the City
of York Redevelopment Authority within one year of leaving employment with the
City of York and Redevelopment Authority on 44 Market Street, York, PA.
c. That no violation of Section 1103(a) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Law,
65 Pa.C.S. §1103(a) occurred in relation to Menzer's involvement as a public
official/ employee on the Historic Fairmont Project.
d. That no violation of Section 1103(g) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Law,
65 Pa.C.S. §1103(g) occurred in relation to Menzer's involvement on the Historic
Fairmont Project as an employee of Wagman Construction within one year of
leaving employment with the City of York and Redevelopment Authority.
e. That no violation of Section 1103(a) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Law,
65 Pa.C.S. §1103(a) occurred in relation to Menzer's involvement as a public
official/ employee on the Susquehanna Commerce Center Project.
f. That no violation of Section 1103(g) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Law,
65 Pa.C.S. §1103(g) occurred in relation to Menzer's involvement on the
Susquehanna Commerce Center Project as an employee of Wagman Construction
within one year of leaving employment with the City of York and Redevelopment
Authority."
The above charges and the proposed disposition by the parties will be now
addressed. As to the three allegations concerning Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, there
must be a use of authority of office by Menzer for a private pecuniary benefit to himself or
Wagman Construction after he became an employee so that it is a business with which he
is associated. The record before us does not establish a use of office by Menzer whereby
he received a pecuniary benefit for himself or acted through a use of office to obtain future
employment with Wagman Construction. Without a use of authority of office, there can be
no violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act. See, Marchitello & McGuire vs. SEC, 657
A.2d 1346 (Pa. Commw. 1995). Accordingly, Menzer did not violate Section 1103(a) of the
Ethics Act when he participated in the process as to municipal projects awarded to
Wagman Construction Company or relating to the Historic Fairmont Project and the
Susquehanna Commerce Center Project because there was no use of authority of office on
his part to obtain a private pecuniary benefit. See, Pappas, Order 971.
Turning to the 1103(g) allegations, Menzer, on behalf of Wagman Construction,
appeared before the Authority a few months after he left public employment. Menzer
appeared on behalf of Wagman as to the 44 West Market Street Project, a renovation for a
combination of retail /office space. Menzer informed the Authority that Wagman wanted a
one year option on the property which was obtained from the Authority for $75,000.
Wagman did not exercise the option and no development occurred. The stipulated
findings reflect representation by Menzer on behalf of his new employer for consideration
(his salary) before his former governmental body (Authority) within one year of termination
Menzer, 03 -063
Page 20
of public service. Accordingly, Menzer unintentionally violated Section 1103(g) of the
Ethics when he represented Wagman Construction Company as to the 44 Market Street,
York Project, on one occasion, before the Authority within one year of leaving employment
with the City and Authority.
As to the remaining two Section 1103(g) violations, these involve alleged
representation by Menzer of Wagman Construction before his former governmental
bodies, the City and the Authority. One allegation concerns the Historic Fairmount Project
and the other involves the Susquehanna Commerce Center. As to the Historic Fairmont
Project, the stipulated findings reflect that Menzer, on behalf of Wagman Construction,
submitted a cost analysis to YCDC for a tax credit and YCDC in turn provided a copy to the
City. Menzer was also the contact person for Wagman Construction on a PHFA loan
application. Both of these actions occurred within one year after Menzer left public
employment with the City /Authority. Although these actions would otherwise fall within the
ambit of representation under Section 1103(g), we must assume that such actions
occurred within the judicially created exception to Section 1103(g) of the Ethics Act. See,
Stephens v. SEC, 571 A.2d 1120 (Pa. Commw. 1990). This analysis obviates any
potential inconsistency between Fact Findings 40.d., 46 and 54.
As to the Susquehanna Commerce Project, the stipulated findings do not reflect any
role by Menzer as to that project. See, Fact Finding 55. In addition, there is a stipulated
finding by the parties to the effect that Menzer did not represent Wagman Construction
before the City as to both of these projects. See, Fact Finding 54.
Accordingly, based upon the stipulations of the parties, Menzer did not violate
Section 1103(g) of the Ethics Act as to any actions by Menzer for Wagman Construction
concerning the Historic Fairmont Project and the Susquehanna Commerce Center Project
in that Menzer did not engage in representation of Wagman Construction as to those two
projects.
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. Menzer, as Economic Development Director and Secretary to the York City
Redevelopment Authority, was a public employee subject to the provisions of Act 9
of 1989 as codified by Act 93 of 1998.
2. Menzer did not violate Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he participated in the
process as to municipal projects awarded to Wagman Construction Company or
relating to the Historic Fairmont Project and the Susquehanna Commerce Center
Project in that Menzer did not use the authority of office for a private pecuniary
benefit for himself or a business with which he is associated.
3. Menzer unintentionally violated Section 1103(g) of the Ethics Act when he
represented Wagman Construction Company as to the 44 Market Street, York
Project, on one occasion, before the City of York Redevelopment Authority within
one year of leaving employment with the City of York and Redevelopment Authority.
4. Menzer did not violate Section 1103(g) of the Ethics Act as to any actions by
Menzer for Wagman Construction concerning the Historic Fairmont Project and the
Susquehanna Commerce Center Project in that Menzer did not engage in
representation of Wagman Construction as to those two projects before his former
governmental bodies within one year of termination of service.
Menzer, 03 -063
Page 21
In Re: Ronald Eric Menzer
ORDER NO. 1357
File Docket: 03 -063
Date Decided: 2/28/05
Date Mailed: 3/14/05
1 Menzer, as Economic Development Director and Secretary to the York City
Redevelopment Authority, did not violate Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he
participated in the process as to municipal projects awarded to Wagman
Construction Company or relating to the Historic Fairmont Project and the
Susquehanna Commerce Center Project in that Menzer did not use the authority of
office for a private pecuniary benefit for himself or a business with which he is
associated.
2. Menzer unintentionally violated Section 1103(g) of the Ethics Act when he
represented Wagman Construction Company as to the 44 Market Street, York
Project, on one occasion, before the City of York Redevelopment Authority within
one year of leaving employment with the City of York and Redevelopment Authority.
3. Menzer did not violate Section 1103(g) of the Ethics Act as to any actions by
Menzer for Wagman Construction concerning the Historic Fairmont Project and the
Susquehanna Commerce Center Project in that Menzer did not engage in
representation of Wagman Construction as to those two projects before his former
governmental bodies within one year of termination of service.
4. The Commission will take no further action on this case which is closed.
BY THE COMMISSION,
Louis W. Fryman, Chair