Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1857 YoungPHONE: 717-783-1610 TOLL FREE: 1-800-932-0936 In Re: Shawn Young, Respondent STATE ETHICS COMMISSION FINANCE BUILDING 613 NORTH STREET, ROOM 309 HARRISBURG, PA 17120-0400 File Docket: Order No. Date Decided: Date Mailed: FACSIMILE: 717-787-0806 WEBSITE: www.ethics.pa.gov 23-0070-C 1857 4/16/26 4/23/26 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. 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 §%, by the above -named Respondent. At the commencement of its investigation, the Investigative Division sewed 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 not filed, and a hearing was deemed waived. The averments in the Investigative Complaint are admitted. The Findings in this Order are derived from the admitted averments of the Investigative Complaint. The record is complete. I. ALLEGATIONS: A. That Shawn Young ("Young"), as a Warren County Constable and the Sheffield Township, Warren County, Code Enforcement Officer, violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he used the authority of his office to dismiss summary ordinance charges in order to obtain ownership of real property. B, That Young, as the Sheffield Township, Warren County, Code Enforcement Officer, violated Sections 1103(c) and 1104(a) of the Ethics Act: (1) When he solicited and accepted ownership of real properly in exchange for dismissing summary ordinance charges; and (2) When he failed to file Statements of Financial Interests ("SFIS") for calendar years 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024. Young, 23-0070-C Page 2 C. That Young, as a Warren County Constable, violated Sections 1105(a), 1105(b)(8), and 1105(b)(9) of the Ethics Act: (1) When he filed deficient SFIs for calendar years 2021 and 2022 by failing to disclose his office, directorship, or employment in any business; and (2) When he filed a deficient SFI for calendar year 2020 when he failed to disclose his office, directorship, or employment in any business and failed to disclose his financial interest in any legal entity in business for profit. D. That Young, as the Glade Township, Warren County, Code Enforcement Officer, violated Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act when he failed to file SFIs for calendar years 2022, 2023, and 2024. E. That Young, as the Pleasant Township, Warren County, Code Enforcement Officer, violated Section I I04(a) of the Ethics Act when he failed to file SFIs for calendar years 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023. II. FINDINGS: 1. The Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission received information alleging that Shawn Young ("Young") violated provisions of the Ethics Act. 2. Upon review of the information the Investigative Division initiated a preliminary inquiry on April 7, 2025. 3. The preliminary inquiry was completed within sixty days. a. The Commission, through the Executive Director, initiated a full investigation on June 6, 2025. 4, On June 6, 2025, a letter was forwarded to Young by the Investigative Division by certified mail, informing him that information against him was received by the Investigative Division and that a full investigation was being commenced. a. The domestic return receipt bore the signature of Shawn Young, with no delivery date listed. 5. On June 17, 2025, an amended Notice of Investigation was forwarded to Young by the Investigative Division by certified mail, informing him that allegations contained in the June 6, 2025, Notice of Investigation were being amended. a. The domestic return receipt bore an illegible signature with no delivery date listed. 6. The Investigative Complaint/Findings Report was mailed to Young on February 25, 2026. a. The Investigative Complaint/Findings Report was issued within 264 days of the initiation of a full investigation. Young, 23-0070-C Page 3 7. Young served as the Code Enforcement Officer ("CEO") for Sheffield Township ("Township"), Warren County, from April 20, 2020, through December 2023. a. Young additionally served as the CEO for Pleasant Township, Warren County, from January 2020 through December 2023. b. Young additionally served as the CEO for Glade Township, Warren County, from January 2023 through December 2025. 8. An individual appointed as a CEO for a Pennsylvania Second Class Township is tasked with various duties and responsibilities, some of which may generally include the following: a. Inspecting, investigating, and enforcing potential ordinance violations to achieve compliance with the township's ordinances; b. Providing updates to the township's governing body regarding investigative and/or enforcement efforts within the township; and C. Representing the township at the district magistrate's office. 9. Young has served as a Constable since at least November 27, 2019. a. Young was appointed to the vacant position of Constable for Glade Township, Warren County on November 27, 2019. b, Young was subsequently elected to a full Constable term during the November 2, 2021, general election. 10. Constables are sworn law enforcement officers with statewide jurisdiction who are elected or appointed to six -year terms and, among other duties, are empowered to enforce criminal and civil laws, including municipal ordinances. a, Constables, as elected officials, are not supervised by a municipality, county government, district attorney, court, or sheriff. 11. The Township is a Second Class Township governed by a three -member Board of Supervisors ("Board"). a. The Supervisors currently hold one regularly scheduled legislative meeting on the first Monday of each month. THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS RELATE TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER POSITION WITHIN SHEFFIELD TOWNSHIP AND THE PROCEDURES TO BE UTILIZED REGARDING CODE/ORDINANCE VIOLATIONS. Yours , 23-0070 C Page 12. From approximately June 1967 through October 2024, the Township enacted and amended multiple ordinances relating to scenarios involving nuisances and junkyards. 13. Code enforcement has been an ongoing issue/concern within the Township for multiple years. 14. To address this concern, the Supervisors consolidated and updated several ordinances to define terms and penalties, including junk, junkyards, motor vehicles, nuisance, owner, and rubbish. 15. One of the ordinances detailed the procedures to be followed when asserted nuisance violations were reported to or came to the attention of the Township. a. The Supervisors, law enforcement, or other person designated by the Supervisors were to investigate the assented nuisance and provide a report of the investigation to the Supervisors. b. Upon identifying any of the conditions as nuisances and passing a resolution detailing such, the Supervisors had the authority to give the owner or lessee of the property (or both) and any person permitting the maintenance of the nuisance at least fifteen days' notice to remove or abate the nuisance. 16. The Township routinely provided the notices to the property owners as well as a copy of the notices to the property tenants if applicable. a. Any charges filed with the applicable Magisterial District Judge were filed solely against the property owners identified by Warren County tax records. 17. The Township Police Department addressed code/ordinance enforcement within the Township until approximately February 29, 2016. 18. At the Township's April 18, 2016, meeting, the Board appointed Road Crew employees as CEOs to represent the Township and enforce its ordinances. 19. In a memorandum dated April 22, 2016, Township Solicitor Andrea Stapleford documented the appointment of the CEO(s), the general process for ordinance enforcement, and criteria for specific ordinances to be enforced as discussed at the April 18, 2016, meeting. a. This memorandum established the general process to be followed related to code/ordinance enforcement. 20. From April 2016 to April 2020, the Township used its Solicitor to pursue enforcement of asserted Township ordinance violations. Young, 23-0070-C Page 5 21. The Board ultimately considered the possibility of utilizing a Constable for code enforcement efforts within the Township due to the extra expenses associated with use of the Solicitor's office for such. a. The Board took no contemporaneous action to retain a Constable to provide code enforcement services at the time when considered. 22. Since approximately January 2019, the Honorable Raymond Zydonik ("Zydonik") has served as the Magisterial District Judge for the Magisterial District covering the Township. 23. In or about the beginning of February 2020, Zydonik contacted Township Secretary/Treasurer Kristi Kulka-Leichtenberger ("Kulka") and recommended Young for potential employment with the Township. a. Zydonik informed Kulka of the following; 1. Young was in the process of receiving his training to be a Constable; 2. Young had already been sworn into office and should be available by mid - February; and 3. Zydonik was going to provide Young the Township's contact information for the possibility of Young working for the Township. 24. Young subsequently contacted Kulka at the Township office, offered his services to the Township, and presented his desire to attend a Township meeting to inform the Board of the services he could perform. a. Young ultimately provided the Township with documentation which outlined the services he could perform, including ordinance investigations, ordinance citations, and representation at court proceedings, and the fees for his service. 25. Young attended the Township's April 20, 2020, meeting at which he introduced himself and offered his services to the Township. a. Young informed the Board that he worked as the CEO for Pleasant and Glade Townships at the rate of $40.00 per hour with anything after an hour charged at $20.00 per one-half hour. b. Young informed the Board that he could patrol the Township to look for and issue citations for ordinance violations. 26. At the Township's April 20, 2020, meeting aaditional discussion occurred between the Board and Young relating to Young's performance of CEO duties in his Constable uniform. Youn , 23-0070-C Page 6 a. The Supervisors expressed their belief that an individual in uniform, hand - delivering a letter, would be more "eventful" than receipt of a letter in the mail. 1. Young agreed with the Supervisors' assessment. 27. After the discussion, Supervisor Nathan Lindberg motioned, seconded by Supervisor Robin Copley, for the Township to employ Young. a. The motion within the Township minutes did not specify the capacity in which Young was to work for the Township. 1. Although not specified, Young was retained to perform services as the Township CEO. b. The vote for Young to work for the Township carried with no objections or abstentions noted. 28. Young's hiring as the Township CEO resulted in various changes to the ordinance violation notice and enforcement process. a. Upon obtaining knowledge of a potential ordinance violation, Kulka passed the information on to Young for review. 1. After examination of the alleged violation, Young would either present his findings to Kulka to forward to the Supervisors or would personally present the information directly to the Supervisors. b. Upon direction from the Supervisors, Kulka generated a courtesy letter which was signed by one of the Supervisors and sent to the property owner and property tenant if applicable. 1. The courtesy letter was typically sent via certified mail. C. If the certified mailing went unclaimed, the mailing was given to Young for personal service to the property owner or posting on the property if no in -person contact was made. 1. It was understood that Young would wear his Constable uniform when serving this mailing. 2. Once the mailing was personally delivered or posted, Young sent an email confirming such to Kulka. d. If the violation was not abated in the time frame documented within the letter, the Supervisors voted at a Township meeting to initiate the enforcement process. Youn , 23-0070-C Page 7 1. After the Supervisors approved enforcement, Young filed the appropriate citation with Zydonik's office and a hearing date was scheduled. C. The property owner had until the day of the hearing to abate the asserted ordinance violation and inform the Township of such. 1. If the asserted ordinance violation was abated, the charges were withdrawn. 2. If the asserted ordinance violation was not abated, Young represented the Township at the scheduled hearing. THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS RELATE TO ALLEGATIONS THAT YOUNG USED THE AUTHORITY OF HIS OFFICE AS THE TOWNSHIP CEO TO SOLICIT AND ACCEPT OWNERSHIP OF REAL PROPERTY IN EXCHANGE FOR DISMISSING SUMMARY ORDINANCE CHARGES WHICH HE HAD FILED AGAINST THE PROPERTY OWNERS. 29. Anthony Scuteri ("Scuteri") was a resident of the Township for multiple years. a. Scuteri owned real property within the Township for multiple years, including property identified by the UPI Numbers ("Parcel Numbers") and corresponding physical addresses as identified below: UPI Number* Physical Address SH-003-83227 None assigned SH-359-5486 261 Cottage Avenue, Sheffield, PA 16347 *Uniform Parcel identifier; can be referenced interchangeably as Tax ID Number or Map ID Number b. Scuteri passed away on July 21, 2020. 30. Scuteri's property identified by Parcel Number SH-359-5486 included a mobile home assigned the address of 261 Cottage Avenue, Sheffield, PA 16347 as well as three additional mobile homes with separate Parcel Numbers and addresses as follows: UPI Number Physical Address SH-359-5486-001 245 Cottage Avenue, Sheffield, PA 16347 SH-359-5486-002 227 Cottage Avenue, Sheffield, PA 16347 SH-359-5486-003 209 Cottage Avenue, Sheffield, PA 16347 a. SH-359-5486-000 was the tax billing number for the entire piece of property/land and the mobile home assigned to 261 Cottage Avenue. b. SH-359-5486-001, -002, and -003 were the tax billing numbers for the three additional mobile homes on the property/land under Parcel Number SH-359-5486, 1. Scuteri leased the three additional lots included with Parcel Number SH- 359-5486 and the mobile homes situated on Parcel Numbers SH-359-5486- 002 and -003. Youn , 23-0070-C Page aa. The mobile home associated with SH-359-5486-001 was privately owned. 31. Scuteri deeded the property and mobile homes under Parcel Number SH-359-5486-000, -002, and -003 to Cheryl Scuteri ("C. Scuteri") and Michelle Grubbs ("Grubbs") on July 6, 2010. a. C. Scuteri was Scuteri's wife. 1. C. Scuteri passed away on July 29, 2023. b. Grubbs is Scuteri's daughter. 32. Scuteri, and later C. Scuteri and Grubbs, leased two of the mobile homes and three lots situated on/associated with Parcel Number SH-359-5486. The Scuteris resided in the mobile home at the 261 Cottage Avenue address. 33. Scuteri's property under Parcel Number SH-003-83227 was subject to Township code enforcement q-ffotis at various times prior to Scuteri's passing. Township Violation Lists dated April 28, 2020, May 4, 2020, and May 6, 2020 documented efforts by the Township to correct asserted ordinance violations in association with the property dating back to at least July 17, 2017. b. The Township Violation Lists all detailed that the property under Parcel Number SH-003-83227 was to be investigated during the fall road inspection. 34. At the Township's October 19, 2020, meeting, a question from Young was presented to the Board as pail of the meeting agenda regarding Township ordinance violations. a. Young had questioned whether he was to prepare a citation or have a courtesy letter sent if he observed a nuisance ordinance violation while serving papers on a Township resident. 1. The Board determined to first have a courtesy letter sent with a citation following if no corrective action occurred. 35. Young authored a memo to Kulka and the Township Supervisors dated October 21, 2020, regarding potential ordinance violations in association with 209 Cottage Avenue and the additional addresses associated with Parcel Number S1I-359-5486. a. Young reported his personal observation of the potential violations on October 12, 2020, while performing duties related to his position as a Constable, Young, 23-0070-C Page R b. The memo was documented as having been written in relation to "209 Cottage Avenue & all others at that end of the road." 36. At the Township's November 2, 2020, meeting, Young submitted pictures of 209 Cottage Avenue and all other properties at the end of the road which showed accumulation of garbage and debris. a. The Board made the decision to send a courtesy letter to Grubbs and C. Scuteri as the property owners, granting them thirty days to clean up the properties. 37. Kulka generated correspondence to Grubbs and C. Scuteri on Township letterhead dated November 9, 2020, regarding "209 Cottage Avenue and all others at the end of the road, Sheffield Township, Warren County SH 359-548600-003." a. The letter identified Young's report to the Supervisors of a violation of the Township Nuisance and Junkyard Ordinance ("Ordinance No. 91 ") for the property at 209 Cottage Avenue and all other properties owned by Grubbs and C. Scuteri at the end of Cottage Avenue in the Township. b. The letter granted Grubbs and C. Scuteri thirty days from receipt of the letter to clean up the property. C. The letter informed Grubbs and C. Scuteri that Young was scheduled to investigate the property prior to the Township's December 7, 2020, meeting to determine if the property was still in violation of Ordinance No. 91. d. The letter was signed by Supervisor J. Jay Fitch in his capacity as the Chairman of the Board. 38. The letter was sent to Grubbs and C. Scuteri's attention on November 9, 2020, via certified mail to C. Scuteri's P.O Box associated with her address at 261 Cottage Avenue. 39. Neither C. Scuteri nor Grubbs claimed the letter sent by the Township to Scuteri's P.O. Box. a. Grubbs' and C. Scuteri's failure to claim the certified letter was presented at the Township's December 21, 2020, meeting. b. The need for the C. Scuteri/Grubbs letter to be hand -delivered by Young was subsequently presented at the Township's January 19, 2021, meeting under "Pending Items." 40. Young personally delivered the Township's November 9, 2020, letter to C. Scuteri at 261 Cottage Avenue on January 27, 2021. Young, 23-0070-C Page 0 41. At the Township's February 16, 2021, meeting, a pending list of property concerns was presented which documented, among other items, the property owned by C. Scuteri and Grubbs. a. Young was documented as having personally served the letter/complaint on January 27, 2021. b. C. Scuteri/Grubbs were documented as having thirty days to clean up the property. 42. Although clean-up of the property was to occur as of or before approximately February 26, 2021, the Township did not take any enforcement action immediately after that date. a. The Supervisors issued a letter to C. Scuteri and Grubbs dated March 5, 2021, granting an extension of time until April 30, 2021, to clean up the property. 43. At the Township's May 3, 2021, meeting, a pending list of property concerns was presented which summarized, in part, actions taken and actions to be taken by the Township in relation to the C. Scuteri and Grubbs property including: a. Young's hand delivery of the courtesy letter/complaint on January 27, 2021; b. The thirty -day cure period enacted by the Township; C. The extension of the cure period until April 30, 2021; and d. The Board's referral of the property to Young for citations to be filed at the Magisterial District Court. 44. On May 4, 2021, Young traveled to 209 Cottage Avenue and observed that there had not been any action taken to cure the potential ordinance violations. a. Young subsequently completed a Non -Traffic Citation' in association with the property which detailed, in part, the following: 1. Grubbs as the Defendant; 2. The charge as an ordinance violation; 3. The nature of offense as the unsheltered storage or maintenance of junk or the storage or maintenance of garbage, rubbish, or any other materials; and 4. The date and time of the offense as May 4, 2021, at 6:46 p.m. f Young completed and filed a mirror ordinance violation citation against C. Scuteri in association with the property which followed the ultimate docket sheet and disposition for Grubbs' citation; however, the Investigative Complaint references only the situation regarding Grubbs as Young had no known interaction with C. Scuteri regarding the situation absent service of the letter/complaint on January 27, 2021. Young, 23-0070-C Page 1 i 45. Young filed the citation at the Magisterial District Court on May 20, 2021. a. Young signed the citation and documented his Constable certification number of B4631 as his badge number. 46. On May 20, 2021, the Magisterial District Judge issued Grubbs a summons via certified mail. a. The summons identified the ordinance and section charged as LO § 91-11 §§, described as Nuisance and Junkyard Ordinance - Nuisances. b. The summons identified the total fine, costs, etc., as $376.75. 47. Until receipt of the summons from the Magisterial District Judge, Grubbs was not aware of the Township's assertion of ordinance violations at the Cottage Avenue property owned by her and C. Scuteri. a. There is no evidence that Grubbs was aware that the Township had attempted contact with C. Scuteri regarding potential ordinance violation concerns. 1. C. Scuteri had not informed Grubbs of her receipt of the letters from the Township dated November 9, 2020, and March 5, 2021. 48. Upon receipt of the summons, Grubbs obtained an estimate from a contractor for cleanup of the property to cure the situation. a. The estimate Grubbs received totaled approximately $100,000. b. Neither Grubbs nor C. Scuteri had the financial means to contract for the cleanup. 49. On or about June 2, 2021, Grubbs traveled to the Magisterial District Court to plead guilty to the ordinance charges filed against her and C. Scuteri and pay the associated fine. a. Grubbs was advised by a representative of the Magisterial District Court to plead not guilty. b. Grubbs pleaded not guilty. 50. Grubbs was issued a Summary Trial Notice dated June 2, 2021, upon entrance of her not guilty plea. a. Grubbs' trial date was scheduled for Wednesday, June 16, 2021. 51. Grubbs appeared at the Magisterial District Court on June 16, 2021, for her scheduled trial date to change her plea to guilty and pay the associated fine. Youn , 23-0070-C Page 2 a. Grubbs intended to plead guilty to gain time to develop a plan to ultimately clean up the property. 52. Young was present at the Magisterial District Court on June 16, 2021, when Grubbs arrived for the hearing. a. Young was wearing his Constable uniform for the hearing. 53. Young and Grubbs proceeded to the vacant courtroom where they discussed the situation among themselves. a. Grubbs disclosed the clean-up estimate that she had received, that she could not afford to have the property cleaned up, and her desire to plead guilty and pay the applicable fine. 54. At that time, Young gave Grubbs non-verbal cues, including shaking his head from side to side and gesturing with his hands, that she should not plead guilty and pay the fine. a. Young then informed Grubbs that he was going to speak with Zydonik and exited the room. b. Young reentered the room a short time later, informed Grubbs that they were done, and indicated that he would walk Grubbs outside. 55. Once outside, Young told Grubbs the following: a. He could take the property off her hands; b. He would take care of having the property cleaned up; C. He wanted to use the property for rental purposes; and d. He would drop the charges against Grubbs and C. Scuteri in exchange for them transferring the property to Young. 56. Grubbs agreed to consider Young's solicitation and to discuss the matter in more detail in the future with the understanding that Young was going to initiate contact with her. 57. Grubbs' summary trial date was subsequently continued/rescheduled to September 14, 2021. a. The Rescheduling Notice was dated June 17, 2021, and documented that a continuance had been requested by "Shaw A. Young." b. The Rescheduling Notice documented the reason for the continuance as "Other." Young, 23-0070-C Page 13 58. On June 24, 2021, Young and Grubbs exchanged the following text messages in relation to Young's solicitation of Grubbs' and C. Scuteri's Property on Cottage Avenue: June 24, 2021, 2:08 p.m. Young: Hey Michelle it's Shawn Young State Constable and code enforcement officer for Sheffield Township just wanted to check in and see if you had thought about things about the property and getting rid of it? I just want to get some guys and start cleaning the areas up is all if you wanted to get rid of it to me. Please let me know Thanks Shawn Grubbs: I'm sorry I meant to text you back the other day just got back later than I thought which my moms doctor appointment. Any yes I want to get rid of it to you June 24, 2021, 6:25 p.m. Young: Ok let me know when a good time is to get with you and work it all out Grubbs: How soon were you thinking Young: Anytime really. , ..I went to the township meeting the other night and the property was on there topic so I told them we might be working on something and I would make sure there was improvements real soon just don't want them to start thinking nothing is getting done is all 59. Young did not disclose to the Township his solicitation of Grubbs for her and C. Scuteri's property in exchange for the withdrawal/dismissal of charges against them. 60. Young and Grubbs met at Grubbs' residence on June 25, 2021, to discuss the deeding of the property to Young. a. The verbal agreement reached included, in part, the following: 1. The deeding of the property to Young at no cost for the withdrawal/dismissal of the summary ordinance violation charges against Grubbs and C. Scuteri; aa. Young informed Grubbs during a later communication that the property had to be transferred into his name prior to her rescheduled September 14, 2021, hearing date. 2. The allowance for C. Scuteri to reside in the trailer located on the property assigned address 261 Cottage Avenue, Sheffield, PA, rent free until C. Scuteri's passing with Grubbs paying the yearly taxes associated with the structure; Yo�un , 23-0070-C Page 14 3. The allowance for the other existing occupants in the trailers on the property to remain; and 4. Young's paying of the filing fees at the Register and Recorder's Office as well as applicable attorney's fees. 61. On June 28, 2021, Young texted Grubbs the name and contact number for Attorney Ken Crosby O'Crosby") to assist with the property transfer from Grubbs to Young. a. Young had utilized Crosby for real estate transactions in the past. 62. Grubbs telephoned Crosby at his law office on June 28, 2021, and July 12, 2021. a. Crosby returned Grubbs' calls on July 12, 2021. 1. Grubbs informed Crosby of her potential property transfer to Young and presented various questions to Crosby. b. Grubbs texted Young after her telephone conversation with Crosby. 1. Grubbs informed Young that Crosby hoped to have the title searches completed by July 14, 2021, to move forward. 63. Young sent a text message to Grubbs on July 20, 2021, questioning if Grubbs had heard from Crosby or if Young should contact Crosby. a. Grubbs informed Young via text that same day that she had not heard from Crosby and a call from Young may possibly help. 1. Young subsequently called Crosby's office on July 20, 2021, and left a message questioning the status of the property transaction. 64. Between the dates of July 27, 2021, and August 5, 2021, Young and Grubbs exchanged multiple text messages relating to the deeding of Grubbs' and C. Scuteri's property to Young. a. The text messages included affirmation of both Young and Grubbs having communicated with Crosby's office and Crosby's drafting of a deed for the property transfer. 65. Crosby generated a deed which included, among other information: a. The applicable property, identified under Parcel Numbers SH 359-5486-000, SH 359-5486-001, SH 359-5486-002, and SH 359-5486-003. YOUn , 23-0070-C Page b. C. Scuteri, Grubbs, and Grubbs' spouse Scott Grubbs ("S. Grubbs") as the Property Grantors and Young as the Property Grantee; 1. The deed included a section for the signature of C. Scuteri, Grubbs, and S. Grubbs. 2. The purpose of S. Grubbs' signature on the deed was to quitclaim any rental interest he had acquired in the property. C. C. Scuteri, Grubbs, and S. Grubbs granting and conveying the property identified to Young in the amount of $1.00 in hand; and d. Actual consideration of the transaction in the amount of $2,000. 66. No money changed hands between Young and Grubbs for the property per their agreement. 67. The unexecuted deed was transported from Crosby's office to the Township office to be notarized. 68. On August 18, 2021, Grubbs traveled to the Township office for Kulka to notarize the deed for the property transfer to Young. a. Kulka was a Iicensed notary in Warren County at that time. 69. Upon appearing before Kulka, Grubbs personally signed her own name, C. Scuteri's name, and S. Grubbs' name to the deed. a. Kulka notarized the deed although S. Grubbs was not present and did not personally sign his name to the deed. b. Grubbs had power of attorney for C. Scuteri at the time. c. The execution date documented on the deed was August 17, 2021, instead of August 18, 2021. 70. Crosby subsequently filed the deed with the Warren County Register's and Recorder's office on August 20, 2021. a. The deed was filed under Instrument Number 2021-3357. 71. As of at least August 20, 2021, Young has been the legal owner of record of the property located on Parcel Numbers SH 359-5486-000; -001, -002; and -003 and the structures located at SH 359-5486-000; -002; and -003. a. The mobile home associated with SH 357-5486-001 was privately owned by Rick and/or Mary Kay Auflick. Yout1g, 23-0070-C Page 16 72. On or about September 13, 2021, Young requested the withdrawal of the charges he had filed against Grubbs at the Magisterial District Court. a. Young's signature is present along with the date of September 13, 2021, under "Prosecution Withdrawn" in the adjudication section on the rear side the citation. 73. A hearing was never held for Grubbs at the Magisterial District Court due to Young's withdrawal of the charge. a. The formal disposition was documented as "Withdrawn." b. The formal disposition date was documented as September 14, 2021. THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS RELATE TO YOUNG'S REALIZATION OF A FINANCIAL GAIN AS A RESULT OF HIS ENTERING INTO A LAND CONTRACT WITH PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS FOR THE COTTAGE AVENUE PROPERTY SOLICITED IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE TOWNSHIP CEO FROM GRUBBS IN EXCHANGE FOR THE WITHDRAWAL OF TOWNSHIP ORDINANCE VIOLATIONS. 74. Kevin Williams ("Williams") became acquainted with Young during or about late spring/early summer 2022. a. Williams met Young through Young's brother, Brandon Young ("B. Young"). 75. Williams became aware of Young's ownership of the property and mobile homes on Cottage Avenue through conversations with B. Young. a. Williams had informed B. Young that he and Virginia Gates ("Gates") were looking for a place to live in the Township. b. B. Young informed Williams that Young had property which Young was willing to sell in a rent to own capacity. 1. B. Young identified the price of the property as $30,000. 76. Williams obtained the property address from B. Young, traveled to the property location, and personally assessed the property as well as the trailers which sat on the property. a. Although Williams determined that the property needed a significant amount of clean-upMork, he and Gates agreed to pursue its purchase from Young. 1. Williams and Gates needed to locate a home before the onset of winter. aa. At least one of the trailers on the property was vacant at that time. 2. Williams was interested in possibly operating the property as a mobile home park as an additional income source. You❑ , 23-0070-C Page 7 77. Shortly after personally assessing the property, Williams met Young and B, Young to walk the property, point out property lines, and discuss the potential sale. 78. Young confirmed the property sale price of $30,000 during the property walk. 79. During the property walk, Young and Williams also discussed the condition of the property and the need for it to be cleaned up. a. Young explained that if Williams purchased the property, as CEO, Young would not issue any ordinance citations on the property if Williams trade a continuing effort to clean up the property. 1. Young asserted to Williams that, if any citations were ultimately issued for the property, the citations would be Williams' responsibility. 80. As a result of the meeting, Williams verbally agreed to a purchase price of $30,000 with a downpayment of $14,000 and monthly payments to be made to Young until the purchase price was reached. 81. Young obtained/created a land contract for all parties to sign regarding the sale of the property. 82. On or about July 27, 2022, Young contacted Williams and questioned if Williams and Gates could meet him at the Magisterial District Court on July 28, 2022, to sign the land contract. a. Young had not previously provided Williams and Gates with a copy of the contract for review. 83. Young, Williams, and Gates met in the parking area of the Magisterial District Court on July 28, 2022, to execute the contract. a. Upon Young's presentation of the contract, Williams and Gates expressed an interest in having an attorney review the document. b. Young indicated that he intended to file the document with the Warren County Courthouse the following day and added that he would not sell the property if the contract was not signed at that time. C. Young was wearing his Constable uniform during this meeting. 84. After initialing and signing the contract, Young, Williams, and Gates proceeded into the Magisterial District Court and had the contract notarized. 85. Upon exiting the Magisterial District Court, Williams provided Young with a cashier's check dated July 25, 2022, in the amount of $14,000. Young, 23-0070-C Page i & a. The cashier's check was payable to "Shawn Young." b. The cashier's check documented Williams as the purchaser. C. The cashier's check detailed "Mobile Home Park -Sheffield" in the memo section. 86. Young negotiated the cashier's check at a Northwest Savings Bank location on July 29, 2022, into an account over which he maintained signature authority. 87. Between October 1, 2022, and June 6, 2023, Williams issued at least five money orders to Young totaling at least $2,900 in furtherance of his purchase of the property. a. Young deposited each of the five money orders into a Northwest Saving Bank account over which he maintained control. 88. Although Young entered into a land contract with Williams and Gates as of July 28, 2022, Young remained the owner per the deed on file with the Warren County Recorder of Deeds office and per the terms of the land contract between Young, Williams, and Gates. a. The land contract executed between Young, Williams, and Gates did not include a deed formally transferring property ownership to Williams and Gates. Included in the land contract under Item Number 19, "Deed and Evidence of Title" was the following: 2. Included within the land contract under Item Number 18, "Assignment or Sale of the Premises" was the following; Included under Item number 18 as a subsection of the land contract were four stipulations regarding tenants and subleasing which mandated, in part, the following: Youn , 23-0070-C Page 9 4. Included within the land contract under Item Number 28, "Additional Clauses" was the following: 89. Between August 20, 2021, and September 11, 2023, Young, as the owner of the property, failed to bring the property into compliance with Township ordinances. a. The condition of Young's property was presented to the Board by a resident during the public comment portion of the Township's September 11, 2023, meeting. 1. The Board authorized sending Young a courtesy letter regarding the condition of the property. 90. Young was the Township CEO at all times from August 20, 2021, through September 11, 2023. 91. Young failed to report his own property on Cottage Avenue to the Township as an applicable target for potential enforcement regarding violations of Township ordinances. 92. On September 22, 2023, the Township sent a courtesy letter dated September 15, 2023, to Young at his residence address in Warren regarding 261 Cottage Avenue. a. The letter documented the conditions of Young's Cottage Avenue property falling under the applicable Township ordinance. Your , 23-0070-C Page 20 b. The letter provided Young fifteen days from its receipt to cure the property condition. C. The letter documented that Young would be prosecuted under the ordinance if the property was still in violation after the fifteen -day period. 93. Young replied to the Township via correspondence dated September 28, 2023, in which he affirmed his receipt of the Township's letter and asserted, in part, the following: a. The sale of the property in August 2022 to Williams and Gates who were residing at Cottage Avenue; Young further identified Williams and Gates as the property owners although in his correspondence he acknowledged they had not yet finished paying for the property, b. His willingness to do something on his end but his inability to do so as Williams and Gates would not permit anyone on the property to remedy the situation; and C. His need to file for Williams' and Gates' evictions and clean the property after the eviction was completed. 94. Although Young failed to cure the property condition within the fifteen -day allowance granted by the Township, the Township took no immediate enforcement action against Young regarding the property's condition. a. The Township experienced turmoil in November and December 2023 which ultimately resulted in the seating of an entirely new Board in January 2024. 95. At the February 20, 2024, Township meeting, Young's property and the land contract was discussed under "Old Business." a. Williams was present at the meeting and affirmed having executed a land contract with Young. b. Williams asserted his continued attempt to clean up the property. 96. Williams and Gates received correspondence dated March 28, 2024, from Stapleford & Byham, LLC, Young's legal representative, on April 9, 2024, via certified mail. a. The correspondence served as a Notice to Quit to Williams and Gates. b. The correspondence asserted the following: 1. Williams and Gates were no longer entitled to reside at or be in possession of in any form the premises located at 209 Cottage Avenue, and their residence at the location was terminated; Youn , 23-0070-C Page 2, Williams and Gates had resided at the property since August 2022; 3, Williams and Gates had failed to pay sums due to the owner as required; 4. Williams and Gates had failed to maintain and improve the property; and 5. Williams and Gates had rented a mobile home located on the property, the rent for which was to be turned over to Young but had not occurred. C. The correspondence provided notice that Williams and Gates had thirty days from the date of receipt of the correspondence to vacate the premises, surrender the premises, and have all personal belongings removed. 1. Documented within the correspondence was that any personal belongings remaining at the premises after the thirty -day period were to be considered abandoned and the property of the owner of the premises. aa. Also detailed was that the current owner reserved the right to sell any items of personal property remaining on the property after thirty days and retain the proceeds to pay for expenses incurred in pursuing the matter. d. The correspondence specifically identified Young as the owner. 97. Neither Williams nor Gates vacated the mobile home and the property associated with 209 Cottage Avenue in response to the correspondence. 98. Young was named as the Plaintiff in a Complaint in Ejectment dated October 25, 2024, filed in the Court of Common Pleas of the 37°i Judicial District of Pennsylvania, Warren County, Civil Branch under No. 543 of 2024. a. Williams and Gates were named as Defendants. b. All parties agreed in sworn filings that Williams and Gates paid Young a total of $29,300 for the property to date. 99. On November 29, 2024, Young received a courtesy letter dated November 27, 2024, from the Township indicating that a routine investigation by the Supervisors determined Young's property to be in violation of the Township's Solid Waste Ordinance No. 33, Section 5(A), and providing Young thirty days to correct the violation. 100. On or about March 17, 2025, the Township submitted a private criminal complaint with the Magisterial District Judge alleging that Young violated Township Ordinance No. 33, Section 5, Subparagraph A in association with his property at Cottage Avenue. a. Young pled not guilty to the charge. Ydun , 23-0070-C Page 2 101. On November 19, 2025, the Township authorized the withdrawal of the charges against Young due to the ongoing property ownership dispute between Young, Williams, and Gates. 102. Young, in his capacity as the CEO for the Township, realized a financial gain of approximately $29,300 when he used the authority of his office to solicit and accept real property owned by Township residents in exchange for dismissing summary Township ordinance violation charges which he had identified and filed with the local Magisterial District Court against those residents and when he subsequently entered into a land contract with private individuals to sell the property which he had obtained. THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS RELATE TO ALLEGATIONS THAT YOUNG FAILED TO FILE STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL INTERESTS IN HIS CAPACITY AS CEO FOR SHEFFIELD TOWNSHIP, WARREN COUNTY FOR CALENDAR YEARS 2020 THROUGH 2O23; IN HIS CAPACITY AS CEO FOR GLADE TOWNSHIP, WARREN COUNTY FOR CALENDAR YEARS 2022 THROUGH 2O24; IN HIS CAPACITY AS CEO FOR PLEASANT TOWNSHIP, WARREN COUNTY, FOR CALENDAR YEARS 2019 THROUGH 2O23; AND THAT YOUNG, IN HIS CAPACITY AS A CONSTABLE FOR GLADE TOWNSHIP, WARREN COUNTY, FILED DEFICIENT STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL INTERESTS FOR CALENDAR YEARS 2020 THROUGH 2O22. 103. Statement of Financial Interests ("SFI") filing requirements for public officials and public employees are mandated by Section 1104 of the Ethics Act. a. Section 1104(a) requires that SFIs be filed by May I` annually. 104. SFI disclosure requirements for public officials and public employees are mandated by Section 1105 of the Ethics Act. a. SFIs must be filed on a form prescribed by the Commission. SFI forms prescribed by the Commission for the past five calendar years have specified, in part, the following at the bottom in bold print: "THIS FORM IS CONSIDERED DEFICIENT IF ANY BLOCK ABOVE IS NOT COMPLETED. MAKE A COPY FOR YOUR RECORDS" b. Individuals signing or confirming information contained on their SFIs do so under oath or equivalent affirmation subject to the penalties prescribed by 18 Pa.C.S.§ 4904 (unsworn falsification to authorities) and 65 Pa.C.S.§ 1109(b) (financial interests statement violation). 105. Young was required to file SFIs for calendar years 2019 through 2024 in his capacity as a CEO for multiple municipalities as detailed below: Young, 23-0070-C Page 23 a. Young served as a CEO for Sheffield Township, Warren County, from April 2020 through December 2023. b. Young served as a CEO for Glade Township, Warren County, from January 2023 through December 2025. C. Young served as a CEO for Pleasant Township, Warren County, from January 2020 through December 2023. 106. Young failed to file SFIs with Sheffield Township for calendar years 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023. 107. Young failed to file SFIs with Pleasant Township for calendar years 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023. 108. Young failed to file SFIs with Glade Township for calendar years 2022, 2023, and 2024. 109. Young had SFIs on file with the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission for calendar years 2020 through 2024. a. Young's SFIs were obtained from the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission e- Library on May 28, 2025. 110. Young filed SFIs with the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission for calendar years 2020 through 2024 in the capacity of a Constable as shown below: Calendar Year Submission Date 2020 Februaiy 14, 2021 2021 January 29, 2022 2022 April 30, 2023 2023 April 30, 2024 2024 April 15, 2025 111. Young failed to complete and/or disclose required information on his 2020 calendar year SFI filed in his capacity as a Constable. a, Young left the following sections of his SFI dated February 14, 2021, for the 2020 calendar year blank and/or did not disclose all required information on the SFI as follows: Young failed to disclose his office, directorship, or employment with Shawn A. Young Snowplowing and Allegheny Memorials and Engraving. 2. Young failed to disclose his financial interest in Allegheny Memorials and Engraving. 112. Young failed to complete and/or disclose required information on his 2021 calendar year SFI filed in his capacity as a Constable when he failed to disclose his office, directorship, or employment with Allegheny Memorials and Engraving. Y�oung, 23-0070-C Page 24 113. Young failed to complete and/or disclose required information on his 2022 calendar year SFI filed in his capacity as a Constable when he failed to disclose his office, directorship, or employment with Allegheny Memorials and Engraving. III. DISCUSSION: In his various capacities as a Constable and a Code Enforcement Officer for Sheffield Township, for Glade Township, and for Pleasant Township, Warren County, Pennsylvania, Respondent Shawn Young ("Young") was at all times relevant to these proceedings a "public official" subject to the provisions of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act ("Ethics Act"), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et sew. The allegations are as follows. (1) Young, as a Constable and the Sheffield Township Code Enforcement Officer, violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he used the authority of his office to dismiss summary ordinance charges in order to obtain ownership of real property. (2) Young, as the Sheffield Township Code Enforcement Officer, violated Sections 1103(c) and 1104(a) of the Ethics Act: (a) When he solicited and accepted ownership of real property in exchange for dismissing summary ordinance charges; and (b) When he failed to file Statements of Financial Interests ("SFIs") for calendar years 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024. (3) Young, as a Constable, violated Sections I105(a), 1105(b)(8), and 1105(b)(9) of the Ethics Act: (1) When he filed deficient SFIs for calendar years 2021 and 2022 by failing to disclose his officer, directorship or employment in any business; and (2) When he filed a deficient SFI for calendar year 2020 when he failed to disclose his office, directorship, or employment in any business and failed to disclose his financial 'interest in any legal entity in business for profit. (4) Young, as the Glade Township Code Enforcement Officer, violated Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act when he failed to file SFIs for calendar years 2022, 2023, and 2024. (5) Young, as the Pleasant Township Code Enforcement Officer, violated Section l I04(a) of the Ethics Act when he failed to file SFIs for calendar years 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023, 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 Yooty , 23-0070-C Page 25 (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 following terms related to Section 1103(a) are 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. 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 (financial) benefit of the public official/public employee himself, any member of his immediate family, or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. Section 1103(c) of the Ethics Act provides in part that a public official/public employee shall not solicit or accept anything of monetary value based upon any understanding that his vote, official action or judgment would be influenced thereby: § 1103. Restricted Activities (c) Accepting improper influence. —No public official, public employee or nominee or candidate for public office shall solicit or accept anything of monetary value, including a gift, loan, political contribution, reward or promise of future employment, based on any understanding of that public official, public employee or nominee that the vote, official action or judgment of the public official or public employee or nominee or candidate for public office would be influenced thereby. Youn , 23-0070-C Page 6 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(c). Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act provides that each public official/public employee must file an SFI for the preceding calendar year, each year that he holds the position and the year after he leaves it. Section 1105(a) of the Ethics Act provides that the SFI shall be filed on the form prescribed by this Commission; that all information requested on the form shall be provided to the best of the knowledge, information and belief of the filer; and that the form shall be signed under oath or equivalent affirmation. Section 1105(b) of the Ethics Act and its subsections detail the financial disclosure that a person required to file the SFI form must provide. Section 1105(b)(8) of the Ethics Act requires .the filer to disclose on the SFI any office, directorship or employment in any business entity. Section 1105(b)(9) of the Ethics Act requires the filer to disclose on the SFI any financial interest in any legal entity engaged in business for profit. The tern "financial interest" is defined in the Ethics Act as "[a]ny financial interest in a legal entity engaged in business for profit which comprises more than 5% of the equity of the business or more than 5% of the assets of the economic interest in indebtedness." 65 Pa.C.S. § 1102. We shall now summarize the facts pertaining to this case. Given Young's failure to file an Answer to the Investigative Complaint, the facts as averred by the Investigative Complaint are deemed admitted by Young. See, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1108(e); 51 Pa. Code § 21.5(k)(1). Young has served as a Constable for Glade Township, Warren County, since at least November 27, 2019. Constables are sworn law enforcement officers with statewide jurisdiction to enforce criminal and civil laws, including municipal ordinances. Sheffield Township ("Township") is a Second Class Township located in Warren County, Pennsylvania. The Township is governed by a three -Member Board of Supervisors (`Board"). From approximately June 1967 through October 2024, the Township enacted and amended multiple ordinances defining penalties for nuisances and junkyards. Prior to April 2020, the Township used its Police Department, its road crew employees, or its Solicitor to pursue enforcement of alleged violations of Township ordinances. The Township did not have an appointed Code Enforcement Officer ("CEO"). Young's Hiring as the Township CEO In or about the beginning of February 2020, the Honorable Raymond Zyodnik ("Zyodnik" ), the Magisterial District Judge for the Magisterial District covering the Township, contacted Township Secretary/Treasurer Kristi Kulka-Leiclrtenberger ("Kulka") and recommended Young for potential employment with the Township. Zydonik informed Kulka that Young was in the process of receiving his training to be a Constable and should be available by mid -February. Young subsequently contacted Kulka to express his desire to attend a Township meeting to offer Younr , 23-0070-C Page 27 his services to the Township, and he provided the Township with documentation indicating that he could perform services related to enforcement of the Township's ordinances, including conducting investigations, issuing citations, and representing the Township at court proceedings. At the Board's April 20, 2020, meeting, Young introduced himself to the Supervisors and offered his services to the Township. Young informed the Board of his work as the CEO for other townships and the rate he charged for that work. The Supervisors and Young discussed Young's performance of CEO duties in his Constable uniform, and the Supervisors expressed their belief that an individual in uniform, hand -delivering a letter, would be more "eventful" than the receipt of a letter in the mail. The Supervisors then voted to retain Young to perform services as the Township CEO. Following Young's hiring as the Township CEO, the process for enforcing alleged violations of Township ordinances began with Kulka passing information about a potential ordinance violation to Young for his review. After Young investigated the alleged violation, his findings were presented to the Supervisors. A letter signed by a Supervisor was then sent to the property owner by eel ifred mail, providing the property owner with at least fifteen days' notice to abate the violation. if the certified mail went unclaimed, Young personally served the letter on the property owner or posted it on the property while wearing his Constable uniform. If the violation was not abated in the timeframe document within the letter, the Supervisors voted at a Township meeting to initiate the enforcement process, after which Young filed a citation with Zydonik's Magisterial District Court and a hearing date was scheduled. The property owner had until the day of the hearing to abate the violation. If the violation was abated, the charges were withdrawn. If the violation was not abated, Young represented the Township at the hearing. Young's Use of His Position as CPO to Acquire Real -Property at No Cost As of April 2020, Cheryl Scuteri ("C. Scuteri") and her daughter, Michelle Grubbs ("Grubbs"), were the owners of a property ("the Property") located at Cottage Avenue in the Township. The Property contained four mobile home lots, each of which was assigned a separate physical address on Cottage Avenue, specifically 261, 245, 227, or 209 Cottage Avenue. C. Scuteri and Grubbs owned the mobile homes located on the lots at 261, 227, and 209 Cottage Avenue. The mobile home located on the lot at 245 Cottage Avenue was owned by other individuals. C. Scuteri lived at 261 Cottage Avenue. C. Scuteri and Grubbs leased the lot at 245 Cottage Avenue and the mobile homes and lots at 227 and 209 Cottage Avenue to tenants. At the Board's October 19, 2020, meeting, Young asked the Board whether he was to prepare a citation or have a courtesy letter sent if he observed a nuisance ordinance violation while serving papers on a Township resident. The Board decided to first have a courtesy letter sent with a citation following if no corrective action occurred. Young subsequently authored a memo to the Board that reported his personal observation of potential ordinance violations at 209 Cottage Avenue and the nearby addresses. On November 2, 2020, Young submitted pictures to the Board that showed an accumulation of garbage and debris at 209 Cottage Avenue and the other lots. After the Board decided to send a courtesy letter to C. Scuteri and Grubbs, a Township letter dated November 9, 2020, was sent to C. Scuteri and Grubbs by certified mail to the P.O. Box associated with C. Youn , 23-0070-C Page 8 Scuteri's address at 261 Cottage Avenue. The letter identified Young's report to the Supervisors of a violation of Ordinance No. 91, the Township Nuisance and Junkyard Ordinance, by the Cottage Avenue lots and granted C. Scuteri and Grubbs thirty days from receipt of the letter to clean up the Property. When the Township letter was not claimed by C. Scuteri or Grubbs, Young personally delivered the letter to C. Scuteri at 261 Cottage Avenue on January 27, 2021. Although the Property was to be cleaned up as of or before approximately February 26, 2021, the Township did not take any enforcement action at that time. Instead, the Supervisors issued a letter dated March 5, 2021, to C. Scuteri and Grubbs, which granted an extension of time until April 30, 2021, to clean up the Property. At the Board meeting held on May 3, 2021, the Supervisors referred the Property to Young for citations to be filed with the Magisterial District Court. After Young went to 209 Cottage Avenue and observed that there had not been any action taken to cure the violation of Ordinance No. 91, he fled citations with the Magisterial District Court that identified Grubbs as the defendant, the charge as an ordinance violation, and the nature of the offense as the unsheltered storage or maintenance of junk or the storage or maintenance of garbage, rubbish, or any other materials at the Property. Young signed the citation and documented his Constable certification number on the citation. Young filed a similar citation against C. Scuteri. On May 20, 2021, the Magisterial District Judge issued Grubbs a summons that identified the alleged ordinance violation and the total fine and costs as $376.75. Grubbs was not aware of the Township's assertion of ordinance violations at the Property until she received the summons, as C. Scuteri had not informed Grubbs about the letters that C. Scuteri had received from the Township. After receiving the summons, Grubbs obtained an estimate from a contractor to clean up the Property to cure the situation. The estimate that Grubbs received totaled approximately $100,000, which neither she nor C. Scuteri could afford. Grubbs appeared at the Magisterial District Court on June 16, 2021, to plead guilty and pay the fine. Grubbs intended to plead guilty to gain time to develop a plan to clean up the Property. Young was present and was wearing his Constable uniform. During a discussion with Young in the vacant courtroom, Grubbs disclosed the clean-up estimate that she had received, that she could not afford to have the Property cleaned up, and that she desired to plead guilty and pay the fine. Young gave Grubbs non-verbal cues, including shaking his head from side to side and gesturing with his hands, that she should not plead guilty and pay the fine, and then he informed Grubbs that he was going to speak with Zydonik and exited the room. Young reentered the room a short time later, informed Grubbs that they were done, and indicated that he would walk Grubbs outside. Once they were outside, Young told Grubbs that he could take the Property off her hands and have it cleaned up to be used for rental purposes and that he would drop the charges against her and C. Scuteri in exchange for them transferring the Property to him. Grubbs agreed to consider Young's proposal and to discuss the matter with him in more detail later. After a continuance was requested by Young, Grubbs' summary trial date was continued to September 14, 2021. In a text message to Young on June 24, 2021, Grubbs stated that she wanted to "get rid" of the Property to him. The next day, Young and Grubbs met and reached a verbal agreement with respect to deeding the Property to Young. They agreed, in pertinent part, that: (1) the Property would be deeded to Young at no cost for Young's withdrawal/dismissal of the summary ordinance Yours , 23-0070-C Page 29 violation charges against Grubbs and C. Scuteri; (2) C. Scuteri would be permitted to reside in the mobile home at 261 Cottage Avenue rent free until she passed away, and Grubbs would pay the yearly taxes associated with the mobile home; and (3) other existing occupants of the mobile homes on the Property would be allowed to remain there. On June 28, 2021, Young provided Grubbs with the telephone number of Ken Crosby, Esquire ("Crosby"), who Young had utilized for past real estate transactions, to assist with transferring the Property from Grubbs to Young. Crosby subsequently generated a deed that identified C. Scuteri, Grubbs, and Grubbs' spouse as granting and conveying the Property to Young for the amount of $1.00 in hand. The deed further identified actual consideration of $2,000 for the transaction even though no money changed hands between Young and Grubbs for the Property per their verbal agreement. After the deed was executed by the parties, Crosby filed the deed with the Warren County Register and Recorder's Office on August 20, 2021. Since that date, Young has been the legal owner of record of the Property, its four mobile home lots, and the mobile homes on three of its mobile home lots. On or about September 13, 2021, Young requested the withdrawal of the citation that he had filed against Grubbs with the Magisterial District Court. Young's signature is present along with the date of September 13, 2021, under "Prosecution Withdrawn" in the adjudication section on the rear side the citation. The formal disposition of the citation was documented as "Withdrawn" on September 14, 2021. The citation against C. Scuteri was also withdrawn. Young's Contract to Sell the Property for $30,000 During or about late spring or early summer of 2022, Kevin Williams ("Willams") became aware of Young's ownership of the Property and the mobiles homes through conversations with Young's brother, Brandon Young (`B. Young"). After Williams informed B. Young that Williams and Virginia Gates ("Gates") were looking for a place to live in the Township, B. Young indicated that Young had property that he was willing to sell in a rent to own capacity for $30,000. After Williams obtained the address of the Property and personally assessed the Property and the mobile homes, he and Gates decided to purchase the Property from Young. Although Williams determined that the Property needed a significant amount of cleaning up, he was interested in the possibility of operating the Property as a mobile home park as an additional source of income. Shortly after Williams assessed the property, he met with Young and B. Young to walk the Property and discuss the potential sale. During the Property walk, Young confirmed the sale price of $30,000, and he and Williams discussed the condition of the Property and the need for it to be cleaned up. Young explained that if Williams purchased the property, Young, as CEO, would not issue any citations if Williams made a continuing effort to clean up the Property. As a result of the meeting, Williams verbally agreed to a purchase price of $30,000 for the Property with a down payment of $14,000 and monthly payments to be made to Young until the purchase price was reached. On July 28, 2022, Young, Williams, and Gates met in the parking lot of the Magisterial District Court to execute a contract that Young created for the sale of the Property. After the contract was signed and notarized, Williams gave Young a cashier's check in the amount of Youn , 23-0070-C Page O $14,000. Between October 1, 2022, and .Tune 6, 2023, Williams issued at least five money orders to Young in furtherance of Williams' and Gates' purchase of the Property. The terms of the contract for the purchase of the Property included a provision that upon payment of the full purchase price, the seller would deliver to the purchaser a warranty deed to the Property in the name of the purchaser. The contract also included a provision that if the purchase price of the Property would not be paid in full within two years, the purchaser would forfeit all monies paid and the Property would revert to the seller in full. Between August 20, 2021, and September 11, 2023, Young, as the owner of the Property, failed to bring the Property into compliance with Township ordinances. After a Township resident raised the condition of the Property during the Board's September 11, 2023, meeting, the Board authorized sending Young a courtesy letter. On September 22, 2023, the Township sent a courtesy letter to Young that documented conditions of 261 Cottage Avenue falling under the applicable Township ordinance. The letter provided that Young would be prosecuted under the ordinance if the Property remained in violation. In correspondence to the Township dated September 28, 2023, Young identified Williams and Gates as the owners of the Property while acknowledging that they had not yet finished paying for it. Young asserted that he was willing to do something about the Property's condition but was unable to do so as Williams and Gates would not permit anyone on the Property to remedy the situation. Young further asserted that he needed to have Williams and Gates evicted from the Property. Although Young failed to cure the Property's condition, the Township took no immediate enforcement action against Young. On April 9, 2024, Williams and Gates received correspondence from Stapleford & Byham, LLC, Young's legal representative, that served as a Notice to Quit to Williams and Gates. The correspondence asserted that Williams and Gates had failed to pay sums due to Young as required, had failed to maintain and improve the Property, and were no longer entitled to reside at or be in any form of possession of the premises located at 209 Cottage Avenue. The correspondence gave Williams and Gates notice that they had thirty days to vacate and surrender the premises and have all personal belongings removed from the premises. When Willams and Gates did not vacate the premises in respondence to the correspondence, Young filed a Complaint in Ejectment against Williams and Gates in the Warren County Court of Common Pleas on October 25, 2024. All parties agreed in sworn filings that Williams and Gates had paid Young a total of $29,300 for the Property to date. Although the Township filed a private criminal complaint against Young with the Magisterial District Court in March 2025, alleging that the Property was in violation of the Township's solid waste ordinance, the Township subsequently withdrew the complaint due to the ongoing Property ownership dispute between Young and Williams and Gates. Per the Fact Findings deemed admitted, Young realized a financial gain of approximately $29,300 when he used the authority of his office as the CEO for the Township to solicit and accept the Property owned by Grubbs and C. Scuteri in exchange for dismissing the summary Township ordinance violation charges which he had filed against them with the Magisterial District Court and subsequently entered into a contract with Willams and Gates to sell the Property to them. Young's Delinquent or Deficient SFIs Yours , 23-0070-C Page, i During the times relevant to these proceedings, Young served in the following public positions: (1) Constable since November 27, 2019; (2) Township CEO from April 2020 through December 2023; (3) CEO for Pleasant Township, Warren County, from January 2020 through December 2023; and (4) CEO for Glade Township, Warren County, from January 2023 through December 2025. In each of his public positions, Young was required to annually file an SFI by May 1 containing information for the prior calendar year. For his position as a Constable, Young is required to file his SFIs with this Commission, For his CEO positions, Young was required to file an SFI with the Township, an SFI with Pleasant Township, and an SFI with Glade Township. With respect to Young's position as a Constable, Young filed SFIs with this Commission for calendar years 2020 through 2024. On his SFI for the 2020 calendar year, Young failed to disclose his office, directorship, or employment with Shawn A. Young Snowplowing and with Allegheny Memorials and Engraving as well as his financial interest in Allegheny Memorials and Engraving. On his SFIs for the 2021 and 2022 calendar years, Young failed to disclose his office, directorship, or employment with Allegheny Memorials and Engraving. With respect to Young's CEO positions, Young failed to file SFIs: (1) with the Township for calendar years 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023; (2) with Pleasant Township for calendar years 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023; and (3) with Glade Township for calendar years 2022, 2023, and 2024. We must now determine, based upon the record, whether the actions of Young violated the Ethics Act. As we apply the facts to the allegation, due process requires that we not depart from the allegation. Pennsy 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. 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 applying the Fact Findings as deemed admitted by Young to the allegations, it is clear that the elements for violations of Sections 1103(a) and 1103(c) of the Ethics Act have been established. Youn , 23-0070-C Page 2 Young used the authority of his office as the Township CEO to facilitate his acquisition of the Property from Grubbs and C. Scuteri when he: (1) reported to the Board his personal observation of potential ordinance violations at the Property and submitted pictures to the Board of the Property's condition; (2) filed citations against Grubbs and C. Scuteri with the Magisterial District Court that alleged ordinance violations at the Property; (3) discouraged Grubbs from pleading guilty to the alleged ordinance violations and paying the fine; (4) offered to drop the citations against Grubbs and C. Scuteri in exchange for them transferring the Property to him; and (5) withdrew the citations after the Property was conveyed to him at no cost. It is clear that Young solicited and accepted the Property from Grubbs and C. Scuteri based on the understanding that his official action would be influenced by his receipt of the Property. As a result of Young's actions, he obtained ownership of the Property at no cost and thereafter was able to enter into a contract to sell the Property to Williams and Gates for the purchase price of $30,000. The amount of $29,300 that Williams and Gates had paid to Young as of the date that Young filed a Complaint in Ejectment against them constituted pure financial gain to Young. We hold that Young violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), when he used the authority of his office as the Township CEO to dismiss summary ordinance charges in order to obtain ownership of real property. We further hold that Young, as the Township CEO, violated Section 1103(c) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(c), when he solicited and accepted ownership of real property in exchange for dismissing summary ordinance charges. As for a monetary penalty, Section 1109(c) of the Ethics Act provides, in pertinent part: "Any person who obtains financial gain from violating any provision of this chapter, in addition to any other penalty provided by law, shall pay a sum of phoney equal to three times the amount of the financial gain resulting from such violation into the State Treasury or the treasury of the political subdivision." Given the egregious nature of Young's blatant and intentional conduct in this matter, the imposition of a treble penalty is warranted. Young has admitted that he realized a private pecuniary benefit (financial gain) of approximately $29,300 as a result of this violations of Section 1103(a) and 1103(c) of the Ethics Act. The calculation of the treble penalty is three times the amount of the financial gain resulting from the aforesaid violations, or $87,900 ($29,300 x 3 = $87,900). Young is directed to pay a treble penalty in the amount of $87,900.00 into the State Treasury of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, which payment shall be made payable to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and forwarded to the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission by no later than the thirtieth (30'h) day after the mailing date of this adjudication and Order, for the Pennsylvania Office of the State Treasurer to deposit in the General Fund of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Turning the allegations regarding Young's SFIs, we hold that; (1) Young, as a Constable, violated Sections 1105(a), 1105(b)(8), and 1105(b)(9) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. §§ 1105(a), 1105(b)(8), and 1105(b)(9), when he: (a) filed a deficient SFI for calendar year 2020 when the failed to disclose his office, directorship, or employment in any business and failed to disclose his financial You11 , 23-0070-C Page 3 interest in any legal entity in business for profit; and (b) filed deficient SFIs for calendar years 2021 and 2022 by failing to disclose his office, directorship, or employment in any business; (2) Young, as the Township CEO, violated Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1104(a), when he failed to file SFIs for calendar years 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023; (3) Young, as the CEO for Pleasant Township, violated Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C,S. § 1104(a), when he failed to file SFIs for calendar years 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023; and (4) Young, as the CEO for Glade Township, violated Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1104(a), when he failed to file SFIs for calendar years 2022, 2023, and 2024. Given that Young filed three deficient SFIs with this Commission in relation to his position as a Constable, failed to file SFIs for four calendar years in relation to his position as the CEO for the Township, failed to file SFIs for four calendar years in relation to his position as the CEO for Pleasant Township, and failed to file SFIs for three calendar years in relation to his position as the CEO for Glade Township, Young committed a total of fourteen discrete violations of Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act. Although pursuant to Section I I09(f) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § I I09(f), we could levy one maximum civil penalty in the amount of $250 against Young for each of his fourteen violations of Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act (for a total civil penalty of $3,500), we have decided in the exercise of our discretion to merge Young's violations for each of his four public positions for purposes of the imposition of civil penalties. The total civil penalty to be levied against Young for his deficient or delinquent SFIs is $1,000 ($250 for each of his public positions as a Constable, CEO for Sheffield Township, CEO for Pleasant Township, and CEO for Glade Township). Young is directed to make payment of the aforesaid civil penalty in the amount of $1,000 by no later than the thirtieth day after the mailing date of this adjudication and Order, by forwarding to this Commission a certified check or money order in the amount of $1,000.00 made payable to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, for deposit in the State Treasury. Young is directed to file complete and accurate amended SFIs for calendar years 2020, 2021, and 2022 with this Commission by no later than the thirtieth (30"') day after the mailing date of this adjudication and Order. Young is ftirther directed to file complete and accurate SFIs for calendar years 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023 with both Sheffield Township and Pleasant Township and complete and accurate SFIs for calendar years 2022, 2023, and 2024 with Glade Township and to forward copies of such filings to this Commission by no Iater than the thirtieth (30"') day after the mailing date of this adjudication and Order. Young is directed to not accept any reimbursement, compensation or other payment from Sheffield Township, Pleasant Township, or Glade Township representing a full or partial reimbursement of the aforesaid treble penalty or civil penalties. Yotrn , 23-0070-C Pa4 Non-compliance with the above will result in the institution of an order enforcement action. Turning to the matter of referral, given the criminal penalties associated with the Ethics Act and Young's blatant abuse of the authority of his public office for his own private financial gain, we shall refer this matter to the Office of the Warren County District Attorney and the Office of the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with our recommendation that criminal prosecutions be instituted against Young. IV, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: 1. As a Constable since November 27, 2019, Respondent Shawn Young ("Young") has been 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. As the Code Enforcement Officer for Sheffield Township, Warren County, from April 2020 through December 2023, the Code Enforcement Officer for Pleasant Township, Warren County, from January 2020 through December 2023, and the Code Enforcement Officer for Glade Township, Warren County, from January 2023 through December 2025, Young was a public official subject to the provisions of the Ethics Act. 3. Young violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), when he used the authority of his office as the Code Enforcement Officer for Sheffield Township to dismiss summary ordinance charges in order to obtain ownership of real property. 4. Young, as the Code Enforcement Officer for Sheffield Township, violated Section 1103(c) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(c), when he solicited and accepted ownership of real property in exchange for dismissing summary ordinance charges. 5. Young, as a Constable, violated Sections 1105(a), 1105(b)(8), and 1105(b)(9) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. §§ 1105(a), 1105(b)(8), and 1105(b)(9), when lie: (a) filed a deficient Statement of Financial Interests ("SFI") for calendar year 2020 when he failed to disclose his office, directorship, or employment in any business and failed to disclose his financial interest in any legal entity in business for profit; and (b) filed deficient SFIs for calendar years 2021 and 2022 by failing to disclose his office, directorship, or employment in any business. 6. Young, as the Code Enforcement Officer for Sheffield Township, violated Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1104(a), when he failed to file SFIs for calendar years 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023. 7. Young, as the Code Enforcement Officer for Pleasant Township, violated Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1104(a), when he failed to file SFIs for calendar years 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023. 8. Young, as the Code Enforcement Officer for Glade Township, violated Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1104(a), when he failed to file SFIs for calendar years 2022, 2023, and 2024. Young, 23-0070-C Page 35 9. A treble penalty is warranted. 10. Based upon the totality of the circumstances in this case, civil penalties in the amount of $1,000 are warranted. In Re: Shawn Young, File Docket: 23-0070-C Respondent Date Decided: 4/16126 Date Mailed: 4/23/26 ORDER NO. 1857 1. Shawn Young ("Young") violated Section 1103(a) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act ("Ethics Act"), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), when he used the authority of his office as the Code Enforcement Officer for Sheffield Township, Warren County, to dismiss summary ordinance charges in order to obtain ownership of real property. 2. Young, as the Code Enforcement Officer for Sheffield Township, violated Section 1 I03(c) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(c), when he solicited and accepted ownership of real property in exchange for dismissing summary ordinance charges. 3. Young, as a Constable, violated Sections 1105(a), 1105(b)(8), and 1105(b)(9) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. §§ 1105(a), 1105(b)(8), and 1105(b)(9), when he: (a) filed a deficient Statement of Financial Interests ("SFI") for calendar year 2020 when he failed to disclose his office, directorship, or employment in any business and failed to disclose his financial interest in any legal entity in business for profit; and (b) filed deficient SFIs for calendar years 2021 and 2022 by failing to disclose his office, directorship, or employment in any business. 4. Young, as the Code Enforcement Officer for Sheffield Township, violated Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1104(a), when he failed to file SFIs for calendar years 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023. 5. Young, as the Code Enforcement Officer for Pleasant Township, Warren County, violated Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1104(a), when he failed to file SFIs for calendar years 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023. 6. Young, as the Code Enforcement Officer for GIade Township, Warren County, violated Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1104(a), when he failed to file SFIs for calendar years 2022, 2023, and 2024. 7. Young is directed to make payment of a treble penalty in the amount of $87,900.00 into the State Treasury of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, which payment shall be made payable to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and forwarded to the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission by no later than the thirtieth (30'11) day after the mailing date of this Order, for the Pennsylvania Office of the State Treasurer to deposit in the General Fund of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 8. We hereby levy four maximum civil penalties against Young in the amount of $250 each, for a total of $1,000 for his delinquent or deficient SFIs for calendar years 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024. Y0111 , 23-0070-C Page 7 9. Young is directed to make payment of the aforesaid civil penalties in the total amount of $1,000 by no later than the thirtieth (301h) day after the mailing date of this Order, by forwarding to this Commission a certified check or money order in the amount of $1,000 made payable to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, for deposit in the State Treasury. 10. Young is directed to file complete and accurate amended SFIs for calendar years 2020, 2021, and 2022 with this Commission by no later than the thirtieth (30"') day after the mailing date of this Order. 11. Young is directed to file complete and accurate SFIs for calendar years 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023 with both Sheffield Township and Pleasant Township and complete and accurate SFIs for calendar years 2022, 2023, and 2024 with Glade Township and to forward copies of such filings to this Commission by no later than the thirtieth (30'h) day after the mailing date of this Order. 12. Young is directed to not accept any reimbursement, compensation or other payment from Sheffield Township, Pleasant Township, or Glade Township representing a full or partial reimbursement of the aforesaid treble penalty or civil penalties. 13. Non-compliance with Paragraph 7, 9, 10, 11, or 12 of this Order will result in the institution of an order enforcement action. 14. This matter will be referred to the Office of the Warren County District Attorney and the Office of the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with our recommendation that criminal prosecutions be instituted against Young. BY THE COMMISSION, ichael A. Schwartz, Chair