HomeMy WebLinkAbout1369 Gagliardo, Jr.In Re: Vincent Gagliardo, Jr.
File Docket: 03 -053
X -ref: Order No. 1369
Date Decided: 6/6/05
Date Mailed: 6/17/05
Before: Louis W. Fryman, Chair
John J. Bolger, Vice Chair
Donald M. McCurdy
Paul M. Henry
Raquel K. Bergen
Nicholas A. Colafella
Reverend Scott Pilarz
This is a final adjudication of the State Ethics Commission.
Procedurally, the Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission conducted
an investigation regarding a possible violation of the Public Official and Employee Ethics
Act, Act 9 of 1989, P.L. 26, 65 P.S. § 401 et seq., as codified by Act 93 of 1998, Chapter
11, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq., by the above -named Respondent. At the commencement of
its investigation, the Investigative Division served upon Respondent written notice of the
specific allegation(s). Upon completion of its investigation, the Investigative Division
issued and served upon Respondent a Findings Report identified as an "Investigative
Complaint." An Answer was filed and a hearing was held. The record is complete.
Effective December 15, 1998, Act 9 of 1989 was repealed and replaced by Chapter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.
Gagliardo, 03 -053
Page 2
I. ALLEGATION:
That Vincent Gagliardo, Jr., a (public official /public employee) in his capacity as a
former member of Reading City Council, Berks County, violated the following provisions of
the State Ethics Act (Act 93 of 1998) when he represented a business with which he and /or
a member of his immediate family is associated, Vince's Towing, before Reading City
Government within one year of leaving service as a city councilman; when he failed to file
Statements of Financial Interests for the 2001 and 2002 calendar years.
Section 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).
Section 1104. Statement of financial interests required to be
filed.
(a) Public official or public employee. - -Each public
official of the Commonwealth shall file a statement of financial
interests for the preceding calendar year with the commission
no later than May 1 of each year that he holds such a position
and of the year after he leaves such a position. Each public
employee and public official of the Commonwealth shall file a
statement of financial interests for the preceding calendar year
with the department, agency, body or bureau in which he is
employed or to which he is appointed or elected no later than
May 1 of each year that he holds such a position and of the
year after he leaves such a position. Any other public
employee or public official shall file a statement of financial
interests with the governing authority of the political
subdivision by which he is employed or within which he is
appointed or elected no later than May 1 of each year that he
holds such a position and of the year after he leaves such a
position. Persons who are full -time or part -time solicitors for
political subdivisions are required to file under this section.
65 Pa.C.S. §1104(a).
II. FINDINGS:
A. Pleadings
1 Upon review of the complaint the Investigative Division initiated a preliminary
inquiry on September 10, 2003.
2. The preliminary inquiry was completed within sixty days.
3. On October 29, 2003, a letter was forwarded to Vincent Gagliardo, Jr., by the
Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission informing him that a complaint
against him was received by the Investigative Division and that a full investigation
was being commenced.
Gagliardo, 03 -053
Page 3
a. Said letter was forwarded by certified mail, no. 7002 3150 0000 6075 4105.
b. The domestic return receipt bore the signature of Vincent Gagliardo, Jr., with
a delivery date of November 1, 2003.
4. On April 22, 2004, an amended Notice of Investigation was forwarded to Vincent
Gagliardo, Jr., by the Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission
informing him that the allegations contained in the October 29, 2003, Notice of
Investigation were being amended.
a. Said letter was forwarded by certified mail, no. 7002 3150 0000 6075 3108.
5. Periodic notice letters were forwarded to Vincent Gagliardo, Jr. in accordance with
the provisions of the Ethics Law advising him of the general status of the
investigation.
6. The Investigative Complaint was mailed to the Respondent on April 26, 2004.
7 Vincent Gagliardo, Jr. served as a member of Reading City Council from January 7,
1998, to January 6, 2002.
a. The City of Reading is divided into six (6) districts.
1. Gagliardo Jr. represented District 1.
8. As a member of Reading City Council, Gagliardo, Jr. served as a member of the
following city council committees:
Administrative Oversight Committee
Public Safety Committee
Public Works Committee
Rules Committee
9. As a former member of Reading City Council, Vincent Gagliardo, Jr.'s former
governmental body was the City of Reading and all agencies, bureaus,
commissions and subdivisions thereof.
10. As a councilman, Gagliardo, Jr. received the following compensation as set by
statute:
1998 - $5,000.00
1999 - $5,000.00
2000 - $5,000.00
2001 - $5,000.00
11. During his term as a councilman, Gagliardo Jr. was employed by Vince's Towing
and Automotive.
a. Gagliardo, Jr. had been employed by Vince's Towing from 1978 until 2002.
b. Gagliardo, Jr. left the employ of Vince's Towing and Automotive on or about
July of 2002.
c. Gagliardo, Jr. was employed by Snap -On Tools from June 2002 until April 1,
2004, when he was re -hired by Vince's Towing and Automotive.
12. The City of Reading does not own or provide towing service.
Gagliardo, 03 -053
Page 4
a. The city has historically contracted for these services.
b. Towing services have been regulated by ordinances approved by city
council.
13. Between 1995 and 1998, the City of Reading regulated towing services within the
City through Ordinance 41 -95, Article 509 of the City Code.
a. Ordinance 41 -95, Article 509 allowed approved towing companies to provide
towing service within the City.
b. The ordinance, in part, included fees and charges associated with towing
services.
14. Specific towing companies were assigned to a specific zone.
15. Towing companies [were] authorized to perform towing services for the City of
Reading as permitted by Ordinance 41 -95, Article 509. - - -
16. Vince's Towing contract with the City predates Vince Gagliardo's service on council.
17. In order for a towing company to receive dispatch information for a tow, the Reading
Bureau of Police, Traffic Enforcement Division would notify a zone - specific towing
company.
a. Towing company selection was based upon what zone(s) needed towing
service(s) as determined by the Reading Bureau of Police.
18. On or about February 1999, the City of Reading, through City Council, enacted a
new towing ordinance for the city's authorized towing companies.
a. The new towing ordinance would provide income to the city through a
process requiring a bid for each zone's towing rights.
19. On August 9, 1999, Reading City Council passed and enacted Ordinance 13 -99,
which provided a new towing ordinance, and superceded prevailing Ordinance 41-
95.
a. Vincent Gagliardo, Jr., abstained from participating in the council vote to
approve the ordinance.
20. Ordinance No. 13 -99 provided, in part, the following relating to the selection of
contractors fees, duties and zones.
a. SELECTION OF TOWING CONTRACTORS
Towing contractors shall be selected by the competitive bidding process, in
accordance with city purchasing procedures. Towing contractors will be
required to pay to the city an amount determined by the bidding process in
return for being granted the contract to tow for the city. Bids will be awarded
for a period of three years, with the beginning and end of each term
coinciding with the calendar year. the [sic] contract may be renewed for a
second three year period with the approval of the city and the towing
contractor(s). Bid specifications will be promulgated by the Purchasing
Manager in conjunction with the Police Department.
TYPE OF SERVICE
DAY CHARGE
NIGHT CHARGE
BASIC SERVICE
Service Call
$30.00
$40.00*
Illegal Parking Tow Fee
$45.00
$55.00*
Accident Tow (1b' hour)
$55.00
$65.00*
Snow Emergency Tow Fee
$50.00
$60.00*
ADDITIONAL CHARGES
Accident Tow (Past 1b' hour)
$7.50 for each
1 /4 hour
$9.00 for each
1 /4 hours*
Open Locked Vehicle
$10.00
$10.00
Dropping Hooked -Up Vehicle
$15.00 * **
$15.00 * **
Dolly Tows
$45.00
$55.00*
Roll Back Tows (see note)
$50.00
$55.00*
Storage (regular tow)
$15.00 per day **
Storage (Accident tow)
$17.00 per day
Disconnect fee (drive shaft)
$10.00
$10.00
Winching from Curb
$15.00
$15.00
25 ton truck * * **
$100.00
$110.00*
Specialized Equipment
$25.00 per hour extra (if needed)
Gagliardo, 03 -053
Page 5
b. QUALIFICATIONS OF TOWER
The qualifications of towers eligible to provide towing services under the
jurisdiction of city authorities acting in accordance with the Pennsylvania
Vehicle Code, the Ordinances of the City of Reading, and any other statutory
regulation will be set by city administration. Such qualifications will be
specified in the Request for Proposals that will be available during the bid
process.
c. TOWING SERVICE CHARGES
The following are hereby fixed as the maximum charges for all authorized
towing contractors in connection with services rendered pursuant to this
Article:
NOTES:
• * -Lower fee charged 7:00 A.M. — 7:00 P.M., Monday through Friday; higher
fee charged at all other times.
• ** -First twenty -four (24) hours no charge.
• * * *- Dropping Hooked Up Vehicle: This fee may be charged to the owner or
operator of any illegally parked vehicle, or any vehicle ordered towed by a
member of the Reading Police Department, if a tow truck is attached in any
way to a vehicle, or a substantial effort has been initiated to tow the vehicle
and the owner or operator arrives at the scene to claim same prior to its
removal.
• * * * * -25 ton truck, or such designation as may be determined for towing
vehicles capable of towing a vehicle that may have a maximum weight rating
as allowed by Vehicle Laws of Pennsylvania (75 PA. C.S.A. as may be
amended).
(b) [sic] Labor: Labor charges art [sic] a maximum of Twenty Five Dollars
($25.00) per man per hour, or fraction thereof, may be charged for services
rendered over and above the first man hour of service, when required,
computed from the time of arrival at the scene. Utilization of additional
personnel, and the assignment of the $25.00 per hour extra fee (if needed)
requires the approval of a supervisor of the Reading Police Department in
advance. All hourly charges for equipment and /or labor shall be completely
Gagliardo, 03 -053
Page 6
documented. A copy of all documentation shall be submitted to the Traffic
Enforcement Unit of the Police Department along with the Police copy of the
two [sic] receipt.
(c) [sic] Storage: There shall be no charge for the first twenty -four (24) hours
of storage. Thereafter, a storage charge may commence at the rate of Ten
Dollars ($15.00) [sic] for each additional twenty -four (24) hours of storage or
fraction thereof, and for vehicles involved in traffic accidents, Twelve Dollars
($17.00) [sic] is charged for each additional twenty -four (24) hours of storage
or fraction thereof.
(d) [sic] Rate Review and Adjustment: City Council may review and adjust the
rates set forth in this section as deemed appropriate or necessary. Such
review and rate reconsideration shall be conducted not more than once each
year.
d. TOWING ZONES
In order to provide for the immediate removal of those vehicles interrupting
the proper and orderly flow of traffic and thereby constituting an emergency
situation, City of Reading shall be divided into zones, the number of zones
not to exceed two (2), the boundaries which shall be determined by
statistical analysis of the volume of vehicles towed by the Police Department
with the exception of abandoned motor vehicle tows. Authorized towing
contractors for each zone will be determined through the competitive bid
process.
21. On or about November 1999, bids were advertised by the city clerk's office in the
Reading Eagle Times for bids on the new towing services for the City of Reading.
a. Sealed bids were to be received in the Office of the City Purchasing
Manager by November 23, 1999.
b. Specifications and bid forms were provided to potential bidders by the Office
of the Purchasing Manager.
c. A non - mandatory pre -bid meeting was held on November 10, 1999.
22. Two companies submitted bids for the towing contracts for each zone individually.
a. Vince's Towing and Berks Towing each submitted bids for the two (2) zones.
1. Both Vince's Towing and Berks Towing had been towing for the city
under the prior towing ordinance.
2. B &B Towing did not submit a bid.
23. The following represents the bids received by the City of Reading by each towing
company for each zone.
Vince's Towing — 12/08/99
Zone 1 $ 8,550
Zone 2 $ 8,550
Total Bid $17,100
Berks Towing
Zone 1 $ 8,500
Zone 2 $ 8,500
Total Bid $ 17,000
24. On December 29, 1999, Maria Ballas, City of Reading Purchasing Manager notified
Vince's Automotive and Towing Services for the City.
a. The letter forwarded advised the City Solicitor would notify them when the
Gagliardo, 03 -053
Page 7
necessary documents are ready for signature.
25. Reading City Council was not required, per provisions of the Home Rule Charter to
approve the bid of Vince's Towing as the amount was under the $20,000 limit set by
the Home Rule Charter.
26. Vince's Towing and Automotive entered into a written contract with the City of
Reading on March 2, 2000.
a. The contract provided that the City of Reading had a three year contract and
agreement with Vince's Towing for towing services consistent with the
provisions of Ordinance 13 -99.
27. In or about February 2002 Reading City Council Public Works Committee members
initiated discussions relating to towing fee increases for the annual towing fee
assessment as directed in the Towing Ordinance 13 -99 Section (d).
a. Section (d) is the Rate Review Adjustment aspect of the contract and
provides that council may review and adjust the rates as deemed appropriate
and necessary and shall not be conducted not more than once each year.
b. Vincent Gagliardo, Jr., was not a member of council at this time, having left
office on January 6, 2002.
28. The Public Works Committee has oversight of City Towing Services.
a. Public Works Committee makes recommendations to Reading City Council.
1. Recommendations may include new or amended ordinances.
29. The rate review was initiated as a result of requests for towing rate increases by
Vince's Automotive.
30. In 2002, the Public Works Committee consisted of the following three council
members:
Michael Schorn
Angel Figeura [sic]
Donald Kerns
31. Councilman and Public Works Committee Member Michael Schorn served as the
liaison between Reading City Council and Vince's Towing & Automotive.
a. Schorn's role was to negotiate fee increase requests from Vince's Towing &
Automotive representatives and report to the committee.
1. Schorn met with both Vince Gagliardo, Sr., and Vince Gagliardo, Jr.
b. Schorn served with Vince Gagliardo, Jr., when Gagliardo, Jr., was a member
of council.
32. On or about February 15, 2002, Councilman Michael Schorn met with Vincent
Gagliardo, Jr., in the conference room of Reading City Council's chief clerk.
a. Vincent Gagliardo, Sr., was telephonically contacted by Vince Gagliardo, Jr.,
and Michael Schorn from the conference room at this time.
Gagliardo, 03 -053
Page 8
33. Gagliardo, Jr., and Schorn had discussed towing service areas in which an increase
would be requested and would also include potential additional services that would
be added under the new towing ordinance.
34. Proposed increases were documented on a draft copy of the then prevailing
ordinance 13 -99.
35. Vince Gagliardo, Jr., was a compensated employee of Vince's Towing at that time.
36. On March 18, 2002, a Public Works Committee (PCW) Public Meeting was held at
Reading City Hall.
a. The meeting agenda for March 18, 2002, included discussions of proposed
towing fee increases.
b. In attendance were PWC members Schorn, Figuera [sic], Kerns and Council
Members Spencer, Reed, Ganster and Waltman.
37. Gagliardo, Jr., had only been out of office for approximately 2 months at the time of
the March 18, 2002, public works meeting.
a. Vince Gagliardo, Jr., was a compensated employee of Vince's Towing at that
time.
38. Gagliardo, Sr., has never attended any Public Works Committee meetings.
39. Councilman White questioned the ability of the City to eliminate the need for a
performance bond.
40. The fee increases were tabled until the next Public Works Committee meeting
scheduled for April 15, 2002.
41. On April 15, 2002, a Public Works Committee meeting was held at Reading City
Hall.
a. Vincent Gagliardo, Jr., was present at the April 15, 2002, Public Works
meeting.
b. Gagliardo, Jr., had only been out of the office for approximately 3 months at
the time of the April 15, 2002, Public Works meeting.
c. Vince Gagliardo, Jr., was a compensated employee of Vince's Towing at that
time.
42. The Mr. Gagliardo referenced to in the April 15, 2002, Public Works Committee
minutes is Vince Gagliardo, Jr.
43. Minutes of the Public Works Committee Meeting of April 15, 2002, include
discussions regarding towing. - - -
a. Solicitor Mooney explained Council has three options:
1. Keep the existing ordinance;
2. Retract the existing ordinance and go back to using multiple
companies as was done before the ordinance was created;
3. Bring the towing service in- house.
Gagliardo, 03 -053
Page 9
b. Questions were raised if the PWC could recommend the enactment of the
ordinance as amended.
1. Schorn stated he could support the amended ordinance with some
compromise on the fee increases.
44. On or about April 17 through 19, 2002, the Respondent received correspondence
from Mike Schorn and /or Linda Kelleher. - -
45. Reading City Council met in a regular session on April 22, 2002.
a. Vince Gagliardo, Jr., attended the meeting and addressed council.
46. The minutes note that the address of the Vincent Gagliardo was 22 Arlington Street,
Reading, PA 19611.
a. During 1992 Vincent Gagliardo, Jr., resided at 22 Arlington Street, Reading,
PA.
47. During the regular council meeting of April 22, 2002, the Public Works Committee
provided a recommendation to advertise for amendments to the towing ordinance.
a. Reading City Home Rule Charter provides that once an ordinance is
presented by Council at a public meeting, the ordinance is voted on at the
following regularly scheduled council meeting.
b. The advertisements were scheduled for April 22, 2002, and April 30, 2002.
48. The Public Works Committee recommendation was for amending Article 15, Section
8 of the City of Reading Codified Ordinances, specifically relating to towing fees.
49. At the May 13, 2002, regular council meeting, Reading City Council President
Vaughn Spencer introduced Bill 18 -2002.
a. Bill 18 -2002 amended Article 15, Section 8, relating to towing fees.
b. The motion passed by a 4 to 3 vote with council members Figuera [sic],
Kerns and Waltman voting to table the towing ordinance on Reed's motion.
c. Bill No. 18 -2002 was referred back to the Public Works Committee.
50. The confrontation between Reed and Gagliardo, Jr., was witnessed by Council
members Figuera [sic], Schorn, Ganster and Managing Director Jeffrey White
through interviews.
51. The Public Works Committee reviewed Ordinance 18 -2002 during its meeting of
May 20, 2002.
a. No action was taken by the committee.
52. At the May 28, 2002, regular city council meeting, Councilman Figueroa moved to
re- introduce the towing ordinance fee increase known as Bill 18 -2002.
a. Upon motion by Figuera [sic], seconded by Schorn, Bill 18 -2002 was passed
with a vote of5to2.
1. Councilman Kerns and Reed voted no.
Gagliardo, 03 -053
Page 10
b. Schorn noted that the towing contract would only be effective for another
seven months.
53. Reading City Home Rule Charter provides that for a bill to be passed, it must pass
through the office of the mayor for his signature to approve the enactment of the
bill.
a. The mayor of the City of Reading must sign the bill within ten (10) days.
54. Reading City Council can override a mayoral veto by a vote of 5 of 7 council members.
55. The Reading City Council took action during the meeting of June 10, 2002, to
override the mayoral veto of Bill 18 -2002.
a. The override failed by a 4 to 3 vote.
56. No further action was taken by City Council regarding Bill 18 -2002, until December
2002.
57. On November 18, 2002, and December 16, 2002, the Public Works Committee met
to discuss the probability of implementing a city owned towing service.
a. Public Works members decided it was not financially or logistically feasible
to have the City take over the towing service.
58. During the December 16, 2002, Public Works Committee meeting it was reported
that the City may be without a towing contract.
a. Vince's Towing and Automotive contract was set to expire in March of 2003.
1. The towing contract provided for a one (1) year extension.
59. At the December 23, 2002, city council meeting an ordinance was introduced to
include an increase in towing fees and creating of an administrative fee to
administer the towing program to be voted on at the January 13, 2003, regular
meeting.
60. At the January 13, 2003, regular council meeting, Bill 2 -2003, increasing towing
fees and creating an administrative fee was passed.
a. The Bill 2 -2003 was passed by a motion of 5 to 1 with Council member Reed
voting no.
61. Reading City Council voted on January 27, 2003, to override Eppihimer's 1/22/03
veto.
62. The new ordinance included a ten ($10) dollar administrative fee to generate
income for the City of Reading per tow, a reduction in the grace period for storage,
and a five ($5) dollar increase in service calls.
63. Tows performed by Vince's Towing are recorded by the Reading Bureau of Police,
Traffic Enforcement Division.
64. Vince's Towing Service invoices confirm various services performed by Vince's and
charges assessed to the vehicle owner.
Gagliardo, 03 -053
Page 11
a. Services provided are not always specified in detail on towing receipts.
65. In his capacity as a Reading City Council Member, Vincent Gagliardo, Jr., filed
Statements of Financial Interests with the City of Reading for calendar years 1998,
1999 and 2000 which included the following disclosures:
a. Calendar Year:
Filed:
Position:
Creditors:
Direct /Indirect Income:
All other Financial Interests:
b. Calendar Year:
Filed:
Position:
Creditors:
Direct /Indirect Income:
All other Financial Interests:
c. Calendar Year:
Filed:
Position:
Creditors:
Direct /Indirect Income:
All other Financial Interests:
B. Testimon
1998 on SEC Form 1/98*
03/30/98
Councilman
Blank
Blank
Blank
1999 on SEC Form 1/00
04/23/00
Councilman
None
City of Reading; Vince's Towing
Vince's Towing, Truck Driver /Mechanic
2000 on SEC Form 1/01
04/16/01
City Council District 1
None
City of Reading; Vince's Towing
Vince's Towing, Truck Driver
66. Vince Gagliardo, Jr., did not file a Statement of Financial Interests for calendar year
2001.
67. Gagliardo, Jr., did not file a Statement of Financial Interests for calendar year 2002,
the year after leaving office.
68. During the years when Gagliardo, Jr., failed to file a Statement of Financial
Interests he had been compensated by the City in the amount of $5,000. [See,
Investigative Complaint, paragraph 84; Answer, paragraph 84].
69. Linda Kelleher has been the Reading City Clerk for the last eight years.
a. Kelleher has the responsibility in part for city records, document
management, assistance to council for policy work, legislation, research, and
constituent services.
b. Kelleher takes and prepares the minutes of city council meetings.
1. For the three - member Public Works Committee (PWK), Kelleher also
takes the minutes.
c. In 2002, council meetings were generally held on a weekly basis.
1. Committee meetings were held before council meetings.
d. ID14 is the prior agreement between the city and Vince's Automotive
Towing,
Gagliardo, 03 -053
Page 12
1. Kelleher is the custodian of the document (agreement).
e. 1D6 is the amended city ordinance for towing with a new fee schedule.
1. The ordinance was enacted on January 13, 2003.
f. The March 18, 2002, minutes for PWC reflect that Gagliardo, Jr. (hereinafter
Gagliardo), a former council member, made statements to the committee
members.
g.
1. Gagliardo mentioned the original towing ordinance and towing
contract in the context of the need to review and adjust the fees.
2. A draft ordinance was discussed, a copy of which was attached to the
minutes.
(a) New language for the ordinance was discussed.
(b) Gagliardo spoke interalia about abandoned cars and the new
provision in the proposed ordinance related to abandoned
vehicles.
(c) Gagliardo discussed items that were subject to change in the
ordinance at the PWC meeting.
(d) Gagliardo discussed the need to adjust and evaluate towing
fees.
(f)
(e) When Gagliardo was on council, some council members were
not comfortable with evaluating and changing rates as to
towing.
Gagliardo stated that the city ethics board in 1998 ruled that
when he was on council, he could not raise or vote on the
matter of rate increases for towing.
The minutes of PWC for April 15, 2002, reflect commentary by Gagliardo.
1. Gagliardo stated to PWC members that the proposed fees would be
consistent with fees charged by other contractors.
2. The minutes reflect the PWC Chair, Figueroa, making a motion,
seconded by Schorn, to recommend the enactment of an amended
ordinance with the compromise and fees as recommended by Schorn
and Gagliardo.
(a) Both Schorn and Gagliardo recommended the compromise of
the fees.
h. The references to the ordinances related to the draft version of February
2002.
1D5 consists in part of a copy of the February 2002, proposed ordinance and
another copy with a number of handwritten changes by Schorn.
Gagliardo, 03 -053
Page 13
1. Schorn asked Kelleher in an April 17, 2002, letter (ID5, p.2) to copy
the letter and proposed changes for him (Schorn) and Gagliardo.
j. In an April 18, 2002 memo, Schorn states that the PWC directed him to work
out a compromise on rate increases as to the proposed towing ordinance.
k. The minutes of the City Council meeting for April 22, 2002, (ID3, p.2) reflect
Gagliardo's appearance and representation of Vince's Towing.
(1) Gagliardo addressed the proposed ordinance that would increase
towing fees.
Shorn's letter of April 17, 2002, (ID5, p.2) references a
conference /discussion with Gagliardo's father.
(1) The comment was in the context of a meeting with Gagliardo.
m. The city does not have the capability to tow vehicles.
(1) The city uses private contractors.
70. Angel F. Figueroa has been a city council member since January of 2002.
a. During 2002, Figueroa was chair of the PWC.
b. At a March 18, 2002, PWC meeting, Gagliardo appeared and spoke about
the proposed ordinance relating to towing fees.
(1) Gagliardo stated that due to insurance premium increases, it would
be necessary for the city to increase towing fees and other service
fees in the new ordinance.
c. Figueroa assigned a committee member /council member to work with
Vince's Towing to review the towing fees.
d. At the April 2000 meeting of PWC, the minutes reflect that Gagliardo
explained the towing fees and suggested that Schorn and Gagliardo meet to
work out a compromise on fees.
(1) Figueroa believes that one change involving the waiver of the
performance bond should have been have handled by the city
solicitor.
e. Gagliardo was very visible and vocal at PWC meetings.
(1) It appeared to Figueroa that Gagliardo was representing Vince's
Towing.
f. The PWC meeting minutes of April 18, 2002, contain a statement of
Gagliardo's representation of Vince's Towing.
(1) Gagliardo spoke about the towing fees.
g. Gagliardo represented Vince's Towing at the city council meeting on April
22, 2002,
Gagliardo, 03 -053
Page 14
(1) Gagliardo made references to Vince's towing in the possessive form,
such as, "we," our business," and his driver."
h. Gagliardo had stated to council that the members know what is occurring
and that he (Gagliardo) hopes the council members will do the right thing.
(1) Figueroa considered Gagliardo's statement as a request for the
council members to support the ordinance.
Figueroa designated Schorn to take the lead as to the review of towing fees.
j. ID5, p.4 and ID6, p.2 are not exactly the same.
k. Gagliardo was invited to appear before the PWC.
1. Gagliardo had an interest in the towing fees.
71. Jeffrey C. White is the former managing director of the City of Reading
a. White started employment as the finance director until 2001 when he
became the managing director.
1. As managing director, White was the chief operating officer of the city
with duties and responsibilities for the day -to -day activities of the city,
the employees and a working relationship with the mayor.
b. White generally attended PWC meetings and took notes of the proceedings.
c. The April 15, 2002, meeting of the PWC was attended by White.
1. One item on the agenda concerned the towing ordinance.
(a) The city solicitor (acting) opined that the city had three options
as to towing:
(1)
(2)
(3)
Retain the existing ordinance;
Restart the existing ordinance in favor of multiple
companies to do the towing services; or
Bring the towing in- house.
2. Gagliardo suggested certain amendments to the existing ordinance.
3. The solicitor was opposed to a waiver of the performance bond.
d. Gagliardo called White on one or two occasions concerning towing
regarding working out a proposal or arrangement with the city.
e. In May 2002, Gagliardo telephoned White about towing in the context of the
current contract requiring two -way radios and having the police do the
paperwork on abandoned vehicles. ID11.
1. The call occurred after the council meeting on May 13, 2002.
f. At the May 13, 2002, council meeting, council member Reed requested that
the towing ordinance be tabled which occurred.
72. Kevin Cramsey is the former Executive Assistant to the Mayor of Reading.
Gagliardo, 03 -053
Page 15
a. Cramsey held the position from the beginning of 2000 to the end of 2003.
b. Cramsey's duties included writing for the Mayor's office, dealing with the
public, and giving the Mayor's advice to council.
c. Gagliardo was the point man for Vince's Towing as to the towing contract.
(1) Gagliardo's statement to council that the members do the right thing
meant that Vince's Towing would get the towing contract.
d. Gagliardo stopped appearing before council at some point.
(1) Gagliardo's father appeared before council in June of 2002.
e. Cramsey considered it to be improper for Gagliardo within one year of
leaving council to negotiate a contract for Vince's Towing.
f. When council passed the ordinance, the mayor vetoed it.
(1) The ordinance came before the mayor for a second time and the
mayor vetoed it again.
(a) Council overrode the veto.
73. Donna Reed (Knause) is a member of Reading City Council since January 2002.
a. Reed attended the PWC meetings in March and April of 2002.
b. At the March 2002 meeting of PWC, Gagliardo appeared to discuss towing
and the perspective from the viewpoint of Vince's Towing.
(1) The towing contract and towing fees were discussed.
c. After Reed asked to table the towing ordinance, Gagliardo came to the
council session to state that he expected movement on the towing
ordinance, not the tabling of it.
d. Reed voted to table the towing ordinance because of pending litigation.
74. Charles Jones has been an employee of Reading since June of 2001 and currently
is the Public Works Director.
a. Jones has duties of supervising work crews in three divisions in the city.
b. Former Mayor Eppihimer was interested in the city doing towing in- house.
c. In 2002, Jones attended PWC meetings where towing was discussed.
d. At the March 2002 PWC meeting, Gagliardo spoke inter alia about the city
doing towing in- house.
e. After the ordinance passed, the towing contract was put out for bids.
f. At the PWC meetings in 2002 when towing was discussed, Gagliardo was
there but no one from competing towing companies.
Gagliardo, 03 -053
Page 16
g.
At the PWC meeting on April 15, 2002, Gagliardo advocated that towing fees
be in line with those of other towing contractors.
h. Gagliardo's father was not present at either of the PWC meetings in early
2002.
75. Joseph Eppihimer was the Reading Mayor from January of 2002 to January of 2004.
a. In Reading, the mayor is in charge as executive with the council performing
an administrative (legislative) role.
b. In lieu of tax increases, Eppihimer wanted to do towing in -house to help the
city financially.
(1) There are also charges for storage in addition to the towing.
c. Council voted on a towing ordinance and subsequently Vince's Towing
obtained the contract.
(1) Council overrode Eppihimer's vetoes.
d. The city receives a small amount of revenue from the towing contract.
76. Keith Mooney is an attorney in the practice of law in the firm Barley Snyder.
a. In 2002, Mooney was the acting solicitor for the City of Reading.
b. The then towing contract for the City was to expire around November 2002.
c. Mooney attended PWC meetings in 2002.
1. Several PWC meetings included discussions of the towing issue.
(a) Gagliardo attended meetings and stated that the rate structure
did not allow Vince's towing to make a profit.
(1) Gagliardo intimated that if the City did not change the
rate structure, Vince's Towing did not want the
business.
(2) Gagliardo wanted the towing fees increased.
d. Gagliardo appeared at city council meetings but in June his father appeared.
1. Gagliardo's father also appeared for the bid opening for the new
towing contract.
e. Council member Schorn was a strong advocate for increasing towing fees.
f. On two or three occasions during committee meetings, Gagliardo and
Schorn discussed the proposed amendment to the ordinance /towing fee
increases.
g. Schorn was in charge of the negotiation of fees for towing.
77. Robert Caruso is the Deputy Executive Director, Director of Investigations for the
State Ethics Commission.
Gagliardo, 03 -053
Page 17
a. Caruso participated in the proceedings of the Investigative Division as to
Gagliardo.
b. The Investigative Division obtained the towing invoices by Vince's Towing for
the city from January 23, 2003, the effective date of the amended towing
ordinance to some point in time in latter 2003.
(1) A comparison was done between the towing fees under the new
ordinance compared to the fees generated if the old ordinance were
still in place.
(2) A number of towing related charges were increased under the new
ordinance.
c. Gagliardo during part of 2002 was a wage employee of Vince's Towing.
(1) Gagliardo was not an employee of Vince's Towing in 2003 when the
towing ordinance was enacted.
78. Daniel Bender is a supervising investigator for the Investigative Division of the
State Ethics Commission.
a. After the amended ordinance on towing was enacted, Gagliardo left Vince's
Towing.
79. Casey Ganster was a member of Reading City Council from January 2000 to
September 2003.
a. Ganster served on two committees, one of which was PWC.
b. Although the mayor wanted to have towing done in- house, the council
continued with contracting out the towing.
c. Council member Schorn participated in drafting the amended ordinance.
80. Mike Shorn is a member of Reading City Council since June 2000.
a. Not only was the towing contract about to expire but the city had to give 90
days notice of renewing the contract or allowing it to expire.
b. Stated increases in the cost of insurance were supplied by Gagliardo's father
to council.
c. Gagliardo appeared at a council meeting.
(1) Gagliardo was upset at the inaction as to the ordinance /towing
contract.
d. Schorn considered himself an interface or go between for council with
Gagliardo to negotiate the fee increases for towing.
e. Although shown various meeting minutes /documents, Schorn did not have
specific recollections of events relating to meetings /discussions regarding
the amended ordinance /towing contract.
Gagliardo, 03 -053
Page 18
f. Gagliardo was a proponent for his father as to the amended
ordinance /towing contract.
81. Vincent Gagliardo, Sr. is the owner of Vince's Towing, a sole proprietorship.
a. Gagliardo worked for Vince's Towing until approximately July 2002.
(1) Gagliardo worked for himself for about a year and then came back to
work for Gagliardo, Sr.
b. Gagliardo does not receive any commissions or bonuses in working for
Vince's Towing.
c. Gagliardo, Sr. has been performing towing services for the city for
approximately 23 years.
d. The city has two towing zones for which a contractor may bid on one or both.
e. Although the former ordinance did not have a provision for an administrative
fee to the city, the new 2003 ordinance has such a provision.
f. Gagliardo, Sr. testified that he did not authorize Gagliardo to lobby council
as to the towing ordinance.
g. Gagliardo, Sr. wanted higher towing fees based upon insurance costs and
increases for employees.
h. Gagliardo, Sr. testified that Gagliardo did not receive any commissions for
going before the PWC or council.
Under the old 2000 contract, Vince's Towing had a charge for the service
plus a roll back.
(1) Under the new contract there is a single fee without additional fees.
j. Under the old contract you could have fees of $55 and $50 ($105) or $45
and $50 ($95) but under the new contract it is $125 flat fee.
j. Gagliardo is a compensated employee of Vince's Towing.
k. Gagliardo, Sr. talked once or twice with Schorn about towing fees.
C. Stipulations
82. Gagliardo did not file Statements of Financial Interests (SFI's) for the calendar
years 2001 and 2002.
D. Documents
83. ID1 is a photocopy of the minutes of the PWC of City Council for March 18, 2002.
a. During the meeting, the following discussion of the towing ordinance
occurred:
"Towing Ordinance
Gagliardo, 03 -053
Page 19
Vince Gagliardo, Towing Contractor, explained that the contract with the City
for towing runs out at the end of this year. He explained that if operated in-
house towing process could be profitable if it were well managed.
Mr. Gagliardo viewed the suggested changes to the Towing Ordinance and
related charges. These changes will give the City the ability to extend the
length of the contract. He described some of the underlying problems in the
existing Ordinance terms.
Mr. Spencer noted the need for Council to understand the Police
Department's thoughts on enforcement and on the City's ability to tow.
Mr. Gagliardo described the process used to declare a car abandoned and
the related State law provisions.
Ms. Reed inquired if it is possible to compare the cost of a City run towing
service versus a contracted out towing service.
Mr. Gagliardo stated that the current Ordinance requires an evaluation and
adjustment of fees and rates on an annual basis. However, this adjustment
has never been done, due to Mr. Gagliardo's past participation on City
Council. Mr. Gagliardo explained the dramatic increase in insurance costs
to the towing company since the September 11 incident. Mr. Gagliardo
explained the many intricacies involved in towing service.
Mr. White questioned the ability of the City to eliminate the need for a
performance bond.
The Committee suggested that the Solicitor review the proposed Ordinance
and a follow -up discussion would be held at the April 15 Public Works
meeting." ID1, p2.
b. Proposed amendments to the towing ordinance were attached to the minutes
which proposals included inter alia increases in towing fees.
84. 1D2 is a photocopy of the minutes of the PWC of City Council for April 15, 2002.
a. The minutes reflect the following discussion concerning the towing
ordinance.
"Mr. Mooney explained that Council has three options:
1. Keep the existing Ordinance.
2. Retract the existing Ordinance and go back to using multiple companies
as was done before this Ordinance was created.
3. Bring the towing service in house.
Mr. White stated his belief that he can not see the City taking back the
towing service.
Mr. Ganster questioned if the City could look to bring the towing service back
in house within a 3 -Year period.
Ms. Kelleher explained that as the towing service would most likely fall under
the Public Works Department and as the consolidated Public Works facility
is not being built to handle this service we will again be left in an area where
public works services will not be consolidated. Mr. Jones agreed.
Gagliardo, 03 -053
Page 20
Mr. Ganster, in reference to the increase in fines, noted that the average
towing client is not a fine upstanding citizen, but a person without a driver's
license, or with an illegally parked car, etc.
Mr. Gagliardo explained that the fees suggested are in line with those
charged by other contractors. He noted that the existing contract calls for an
annual rate review and provides the potential for rate increase. There has
been no rate review or increase for a 3 -Year period.
Ms. Kelleher reported that Sergeant Shilling conveyed similar sentiments on
the fees suggested.
Mr. Figueroa requested that the Solicitor review the contract and the rates.
Mr. Ganster questioned if the Public Works Committee could recommend the
enactment of the Ordinance as amended.
Mr. Schorn stated that he could support the Ordinance with some
compromise on fee bumps.
Mr. Figueroa suggested that Mr. Schorn and Mr. Gagliardo meet to work out
compromise in fees.
Mr. Figueroa moved, seconded by Mr. Schorn to recommend the enactment
of the amended Ordinance with the compromise and fees as recommended
by Mr. Schorn and Mr. Gagliardo.
There was next a discussion on the effect these increased fees will have on
automobiles involved in car accidents.
Mr. Waltman noted the need to balance costs with the service provided. He
suggested that Mr. Gagliardo supply the Finance Committee with a financial
analysis that will justify the increases."
85. 1D3 consists of a copy of City Council Meeting Minutes of April 22, 2002.
a. The minutes reflect inter alia under the caption, "Persons Desiring to
Address Council," the following commentary by Gagliardo:
"Vince Gagliardo, of Arlington Street and representing Vince's Towing,
explained other circumstances involved in the situation with the carjacked
vehicle being stored at Vince's Towing Facility for a long period of time. He
explained the reason for the tow and described the relaying of information
between all the parties. He explained and described the notification process
and the compromise that was made on the storage fees with the vehicle
owner.
Mr. Gagliardo noted the introduction of a towing ordinance that will increase
some of the towing fees. He also described his recent confrontation with
Kevin Cramsey, Assistant to the Mayor, noting that his statements in a
deposition for the Kelleher lawsuit may cause the towing contract to be
removed from Vince's Towing." 1D3, p2.
b. Gagliardo represented a person, Vince's Towing, before his former
governmental body, City Council, within one year of termination of public
service.
Gagliardo, 03 -053
Page 21
86. ID4 consists of a copy of City Council Meeting Minutes of May 13, 2002.
a. The following action was taken as to the proposed towing ordinance:
"Public Works Committee moved to enact Bill No. 18 -2002.
Ms. Reed directed Council's attention to the paragraph in the Mayor's report
asking Council to table the enactment of the towing Ordinance due to act of
litigation involving the current tow contract with Vince's Towing.
Ms. Reed moved, seconded by Mr. Kerns, to table the enactment of Bill
No. 18 -2002.
The motion to table Bill No. 18 -2002 was adopted by the following vote:
Yeas: Figueroa, Kerns, Reed, Waltman — 4.
Nays: Ganster, Schorn, Spencer, President — 3.
Mr. Spencer referred Bill No. 18 -2002 to the Public Works Committee."
ID4, p.8.
87. ID5 consists of photocopies of a memo from Council member Schorn dated April 18,
2002, to the Police Chief and Solicitor, a letter of Schorn dated April 17, 2002 to
Linda Kelleher, proposed amendments to the towing ordinance and the proposed
amended ordinance with various handwritten changes.
a. Schorn's letter contains the following:
"I met with Vince this evening, and on occasion, I was in conference
discussion with his father. Regarding the proposed changes to the Towing
Ordinance, I have attempted to hilite compromises between the two parties,
as well as other pertinent language. Please see the attached (suggested)
revision to what was previously presented:
Also, it is understood that any agreement reached by this Council regarding
increases in Towing rates, would remain constant through May 31, 2004. In
early Spring of 2004, parties may come to the table and revisit the fee
structure and mutually determine if any adjustment(s) are to be made at that
time.
Please copy this letter and the proposed CHANGES for me and Vince."
ID5, p.2.
b. The proposed amended ordinance, both the versions with and without the
handwritten notations, provided for inter alia a waiver of the performance
bond by the towing company as well as various increases for the different
types of service as well as for any additional charges.
88. ID6 consists of a copy of Bill No. 2 -2003, An Ordinance Amending Article 15,
Section 8 of the City of Reading Codified Ordinances.
a. The bill was enacted as an ordinance over the Mayor's veto by Council
action of January 27, 2003.
b. The ordinance required a performance bond.
Type of Service
Day Charge
Night Charge
Basic Service
Service call
$35
$45
Illegal parking tow fee
$55
$65
Accident tow (first hour)
$70
$80
Snow emergency tow fee
$75
$80
Additional Charges
Accident tow (past first hour)
$10.00/
for each / hour
$10 X 00/
for each / hour*
Open locked vehicle
$10
$10
Dropping hooked -up vehicle
$15 * **
$15 * ** + a service call
Dolly tows
$45
$55
Roll back tows (see note)
$125 flat
$125 flat
Storage (regular tow) illegal only
$15 per day w/8 hour grace period
Storage (accident tow and all others)
$30 per day w/8 hour grace period
Disconnect feet (drive shaft)
$10
$10
Winching from curb
$15
$15
25 ton truck * * **
$150
$175
Specialized equipment
$25 per hour extra if needed
Release fee after hours & legal holidays
$40
Gate fee
$5
Disposal of debris
Price shall be determined by degree of
hazardous waste
Mileage charge for vehicle delivery beyond
contractor discharge yard
$3 /mile
(AAA Rates)
$5 /mile
(AAA Rates)
Gagliardo, 03 -053
Page 22
c. The ordinance provided for increases in towing fees as to various types of
services and additional charges as follows:
(Notes Omitted)
89. 1D8 consists of copies of four articles from the website of the Reading Eagle, Berks
County News, dated May 14, 2002, May 29, 2002; June 6, 2002; and June 11,
2002.
a. The following is an excerpt from the article of May 14, 2002:
"Former City Councilman Vincent D. Gagliardo, Jr. stomped into a council
meeting Monday after learning council had tabled a proposal to increase the
rates charged by his family's business for towing vehicles.
Gagliardo said he was watching the meeting on Berks Community Television
when Councilwoman Donna Reed asked council not to vote on the issue
until litigation over a contract with Vince's Automotive & Towing, 1725 N.
Fifth St., was settled." 1D8, p.1.
b. The following is an excerpt from the article of May 29, 2002:
The rates that a former city councilman's family business charges to tow
cars that police want removed will be increased June 1, council voted 5 -2
Tuesday.
Mayor Joseph D. Eppihimer warned council that there was no justification for
the increases and that there is pending litigation over the city's contract with
Vince's Automotive & Towing, 1725 N. Fifth St." 1D8, p.3.
Gagliardo, 03 -053
Page 23
90. ID11 is a copy of an e-mail transmission from Jeffrey White to Mayor's Office; Frank
Delewski with a copy to Keith Mooney.
a. The substantive contents of the memo are as follows:
"After last evening's Council Meeting I got a phone call from Vince
Gagliardo. He didn't know whether to talk to me or the Police Department.
He proceeded to request a Police Officer to handle the paperwork on
Abandoned vehicles. I expressed surprise at the request, and he said this is
what the current contract requires. He stated that a Police Officer will need
to complete all future paperwork. Additionally, he stated the current contract
required 2 -way radios, and he is requesting that.
I suggest Kevin contact Vince regarding these requests, and involve the
Police Department as necessary.
Please keep me posted."
91. ID12 is an excerpt from the Reading City Council Meeting Minutes of April 22, 2002,
wherein Gagliardo stated the following:
"Thanks for listening to me tonight, I have to go to another meeting so if
anybody wanted to respond just say it and I'm gonna see it on T.V. a little bit
latter [sic].
Oh also, by the way, you's have before you the contract for towing increases
is gonna get introduced tonight, and also I know that some of City Council is
talking about taking over city towing, the city doing the towing and stuff like
that. I called Jeff White on Friday to discuss that and Jeff forwarded me over
to the Mayor's office. When I called the Mayor's office I was told Joe was
busy, got Kevin Cramsey on the phone.
When I was talking to Kevin Cramsey he said something about "Jeff said you
wanted to make some kind of deal." There ain't no deal, I was telling them
what, how this could come about the city taking over the towing and stuff like
that. And then Kevin mentioned to me that he was reading the deposition
that I gave for the law suit that Linda has against him and made some
comments about some statements that I made in the deposition and asked
me about them and I said, "yeah that's, you know, that's the way I remember
it." He says, Well there's no need for this, we'll be taking the the city towing
from you and you know that'll be the end of conversa...
Right, so. You guys know what's going on, I hope you guys do the right
thing. Just get a hold of me or I'll see this later on your comments because I
got to get to another meeting. Thank you."
92. ID13 consists of a copy of the City Council Meeting Minutes of June 10 2002.
a. Gagliardo's father appeared and spoke about the existing towing ordinance
and the need for an annual review and possible rate adjustment. ID13, p.2.
b. Council took action to override the Mayor's veto of the towing ordinance
which failed by a 4 -3 vote.
Gagliardo, 03 -053
Page 24
(1) A minimum of five votes was needed for an override. ID13, pp.3 -5.
93. ID14 consists of a copy of an Agreement between the City of Reading and Vince's
Automotive & Towing of March 2, 2000, and attachments.
a. Section 509.06, entitled Towing Services Charges, provided for the following
rates:
"(a) Towing - 24 hour service
TYPE OF SERVICE DAY CHARGE NIGHT CHARGE
BASIC SERVICE
Service Call
Illegal Parking Tow Fee
Accident Tow (1 hour)
Snow Emergency Tow Fee
ADDITIONAL CHARGES
Accident Tow (Past 1 hour)
Open Locked Vehicle
Dropping Hooked -up Vehicle
Dolly Tows
Roll Back Tows (see note)
Storage (regular tow)
Storage (accident tow)
Disconnect fee (driveshaft)
Winching from Curb
25 ton truck * * **
Specialized Equipment
$ 30.00
$ 45.00
$ 55.00
$ 50.00
$ 40.00 *
$ 55.00 *
$ 65.00 *
$ 60.00 *
$ 7.50
for each 1 /4 hour
$ 10.00
$ 15.00 * **
$ 45.00
$ 50.00
$ 15.00 per day **
$ 17.00 per day
$ 10.00 $ 10.00
$ 15.00 $ 15.00
$100.00 $110.00*
$ 25.00 per hour extra (if needed)"
$ 9.00
for each 1 /4 hour*
$ 10.00
$ 15.00 * **
$ 55.00 *
$ 55.00 *
ID14, p.10.
(Explanatory notes on above omitted.)
94. ID15 consists in part of a copy of an article from the website of the Reading Eagle
dated March 19, 2002.
a. In an article by the Reading Eagle, the following excerpt appears:
"Former City Councilman Vincent D. Gagliardo Jr. asked
council Monday to consider increasing the rates his family's
company charges for towing vehicles that police need
removed." ID15, p.1.
(1) Gagliardo's appearance before council occurred within one year after
his termination of service from that governmental body.
95. ID18 consists of a copy of City Council Meeting Minutes of January 13, 2003.
a. The following action was taken in enacting the amended towing ordinance:
"Bill No. 2 -2003 - amending certain sections of the towing ordinance by
increasing towing service charges, and creating an administrative fee to
Gagliardo, 03 -053
Page 25
administer the towing program. (Public Works Depart) Discussed at the
12 -16 Public Works Committee
Mr. Schorn moved, seconded by Mr. Ganster, to enact Bill No. 2 -2003.
Ms. Reed expressed her appreciation for the amount of work that went into
the Ordinance and contract; however, she will not support the enactment of
the Ordinance due to the outstanding litigation between the towing
contractor and the City.
Mr. Schorn expressed his thanks to the owner of Vince's towing [sic] and the
Public Works Director for their cooperation in negotiating the extension to
the contract.
Bill No. 2 -2003 was enacted by the following vote:
Yeas: Figueroa, Ganster, Schorn, Waltman, and Spencer, President -
5
Nays: Reed — 1."
1D18, p.5.
96. ID19 is a photocopy of a demonstrative chart of the Investigative Division entitled
"Vincent Gagliardo, Jr. Towing Timeline."
97. ID20 is a VHS videotape as to portions of Reading City Council Meetings on April
22, 2002 and May 13, 2002.
98. 1D22 is a summary of towing invoices prepared by the Investigative Division as to
towing fees for Vince's Towing received in 2003 vis -a -vis its towing contract with the
City of Reading.
a.
b.
The summary reflects the fees Vince's Towing received in the calendar year
2003 for performing towing services in the city.
The summary reflects the differential for each towing service by subtracting
from the existing fee, the fee that would have been charged if the fees had
not been increased in the newly amended towing ordinance.
c. The differential for all towing fees in 2003 amounted to $23,695.00.
99. 1D23 is a summary of increased fees for 2003 received by Vince's Towing under the
new amended towing ordinance.
a. The increased fees per month are as follows:
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
$ 50
40
55
1,520
2,940
2,915
2,890
2,645
3,045
2,785
2,925
Gagliardo, 03 -053
Page 26
December 1 88
Total $23,695
b. Although Gagliardo does not dispute the accuracy of the figures in findings
98.c. and 99.a., he takes the position that the figures have no legal
relevance or significance.
100. 1D24 consists of CD -ROM's of approximately 5,359 separate invoices of Vince's
Towing for the period on or about February 2002 to December 2003.
101. 1D25 is an excerpt from the Reading City Council Meeting of April 22, 2002.
a. The moderator, Vaughn Spencer, introduced Gagliardo who, on behalf of
Vince's Towing, would speak on (towing) fees.
b. Gagliardo made the following commentary which may be summarized as
follows:
(1) Vince's Towing was getting a "bad rap" in the newspaper.
(a) Gagliardo commented upon the circumstances regarding the
towing by Vince's Towing of a late model truck in the city.
102. Exhibit R1 is a photocopy of a letter dated April 6, 2004 from Dawn Joblon of Brown
& Brown Insurance to Pat & Vince Gagliardo, Vince's Auto Sales & Service.
a. The premiums for the "garage policy" are listed as follows:
2000 $13,320
2001 $14,624
2002 $33,198
2003 $42,614
2004 $52,623
(1) There is no delineation as to what types of coverage the premiums
relate.
(2) There is no showing that the premiums relate to towing either
generally for all towing or specifically as to towing for the city.
103. Gagliardo represented a person, Gagliardo Sr./Vince's Towing, with compensation
on the matter of the towing ordinance before his former governmental body, the City
of Reading, within one year after he left that body.
III. DISCUSSION:
Gagliardo has been a public official and a former public official subject to the
provisions of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Law, Act 9 of 1989, Pamphlet Law
26, 65 P.S. § 401, et seq., as codified by the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act, Act
93 of 1998, Chapter 11, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq., which Acts are referred to herein as the
"Ethics Act."
The allegations are that Gagliardo as a former member of Reading City Council,
violated Sections 1103(g) and 1104(a) of the Ethics Act when he represented a business,
Vince's Towing, with which he and his father are associated, before Reading City
Government within one year of leaving service as a city councilman; and when he failed to
Gagliardo, 03 -053
Page 27
file Statements of Financial Interests (SFI's) for the 2001 and 2002 calendar years.
Under Section 1103(g) of Act 9 of 1989, a former public official /public employee is
prohibited from representing a person with 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.
Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act quoted above requires 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.
Having noted the issues and applicable law, we shall now summarize the relevant
facts which are not in dispute. However, the parties are at odds as to the significance and
implication of the facts.
Gagliardo served as a member of the Reading City Council (Council) from January
of 1998 to January 6, 2002. In a private capacity, Gagliardo was employed by Vince's
Towing, from 1978 until July of 2002. Gagliardo then had other employment until April of
2004, when he became re- employed by Vince's Towing. For over 20 years, Vince's
Towing has performed towing services for the City which does not have its own towing.
The process of utilizing private towing services by the City involves the passage of
a towing ordinance which sets the various towing fees and related services that the private
contractor may charge. Once the ordinance is enacted, there is a bidding process
culminating in the award of a contract between the City and the contractor(s) for towing
services within zones of the City. Around the time that Gagliardo's term on Council ended
in January of 2002, a review began as to the existing towing contract which would expire
around November of 2002.
Council members who were on the Public Works Committee (PWC) were assigned
the task of reviewing, drafting and moving forward with a new proposed towing ordinance.
At that time, Gagliardo, as a former Council member, became very active before PWC and
Council as to both the terms and, in particular, the fees for a new ordinance. Gagliardo
urged Council to move the ordinance forward through the legislative process. There were
several collateral issues which slowed the process as to the new ordinance: the advocacy
Gagliardo, 03 -053
Page 28
by the mayor for the City to take over towing in -house as a cost - saving measure for the
taxpayers, and collateral litigation in which Vince's Towing was involved which resulted in
the tabling of the proposed ordinance.
Gagliardo appeared on several occasions before the PWC as well as Council.
Such appearances are well documented, as for example, a videotape of one appearance
where Gagliardo advocated that Council do the right thing, that is, enact a new towing
ordinance. Gagliardo, in his appearances, also advocated for specific changes in the new
ordinance, such as, increases in fees because of purported higher operating costs for
Vince's Towing. Gagliardo's involvement was so extensive that he and the lead Council
member on the PWC, Mike Schorn, actually engaged in negotiations regarding the fee
rates for the new ordinance. Gagliardo attempted to negotiate provisions such as the
removal of a requirement for a performance bond as well as increases in the towing rates
and associated charges. Schorn, on behalf of the city, attempted to negotiate terms which
would result in the passage of the new ordinance.
The consistent testimony of numerous witnesses established that Gagliardo
appeared and represented Vince's Towing before PWC and Council: Linda Kelleher, the
city clerk; Council member Figueroa; the former managing director of the city, Jeffrey
White; the mayor's executive assistant, Kevin Cramsey; Council member Reed; Public
Works Director Charles Jones; acting city solicitor Keith Mooney; and Council member
Schorn. The lobbying by Gagliardo was for the passage of a new zoning ordinance with
terms and fees that would be favorable to Vince's Towing. In advocating for such results,
Gagliardo even referred to Vince's Towing using the possessive form, that is, "we," our
business," and his driver." Fact Finding 70.
With Gagliardo's efforts, the proposed ordinance proceeded through the legislative
process. The ordinance passed but the mayor vetoed it. Finally, the ordinance was
enacted over the mayor's second veto by Council action on January 27, 2003. For the
details of the new rates and fees, see Fact Finding 88. For a comparison between the
rates and fees of the current ordinance and the prior ordinance, see Fact Findings 88 and
20. As a result of the enactment of the new ordinance and the agreement between the
City and Vince's Towing as to the contract for towing services, Vince's Towing in 2003
received an increase in fees totaling $23,695.00 from the inception of its services under
the new ordinance /contract through December of 2003. See, Fact Finding 99.
The parties have filed briefs.
The Investigative Division raises the following arguments:
- Gagliardo actively represented Vince's Towing before his former governmental
body, City Council, within one year of leaving public service;
- Gagliardo met with Council member Schorn in February 2002 to negotiate the new
towing fees schedule;
- Gagliardo actively lobbied members of City Council on several occasions to
increase towing fees;
- On a videotape by Berks County Television, Gagliardo, in an address to City
Council, referenced his lobbying efforts for the towing ordinance /contract and urged
Council to "do the right thing" for passage with increased towing fees;
- Gagliardo received compensation as an employee of Vince's Towing when he
lobbied on behalf of the new ordinance /contract during the one year period after
termination of service with City Council;
Gagliardo, 03 -053
Page 29
- Through personal appearances vis -a -vis Council /Council member Schorn,
Gagliardo "represented" Vince's Towing as that term is defined in the Ethics Act;
- Gagliardo took a prominent role in representing Vince's Towing on two occasions
as to negotiating the towing fees schedule with Council member Schorn on
February 15 and April 17 of 2002;
- Gagliardo, not Gagliardo, Sr., played the material role in negotiating towing fees
with Council member Schorn;
- Gagliardo repeatedly lobbied City Council to pass the new ordinance with higher
towing fees for Vince's Towing, Gagliardo's employer;
- The April 2002 minutes of PWC reflect Committee Chairman Figueroa
recommending enactment of the ordinance with the compromise fees negotiated by
Council member Schorn and Gagliardo;
- Gagliardo addressed City Council in the first person as to Vince's Towing, thereby
indicating his authority to speak on behalf of his employer;
- Gagliardo's argument that (additional) compensation must be received for a
violation of Section 1103(g) contradicts Commission precedent as well as the
legislative history on that provision of the Ethics Act;
- The Commission found in Nixon, Order 1280 that a former sewer authority member
violated Section 1103(g) of the Ethics Act when he, as a salaried employee of a
contractor, appeared before his governmental body within the one -year period of
prohibition, even though Hixon did not receive any additional compensation for
doing so;
- The legislative history as to Section 1103(g) reflects an intendment not to allow a
former public official /public employee from representing a person before his former
governmental body even though no additional compensation is received for such
representation;
- An interpretation of Section 1103(g) that additional compensation is needed to
satisfy the "promised or actual compensation" requirement would create a loophole
and nullify the provision;
- Due to the towing fee increases in the ordinance /agreement, Vince's Towing
received $23,695 more than if the former ordinance /contract would have continued
in effect;
- Restitution should be based upon the actual gain, rather than Gagliardo's
compensation, because of nexus between Gagliardo's lobbying and the resultant
gain to Vince's Towing.
- As to two of the three witnesses for Gagliardo, Ganster had little to offer and
Gagliardo, Sr. played a negligible role regarding the towing ordinance respectively;
- Gagliardo's third witness, Schorn, lacked credibility based upon various problematic
statements: that Gagliardo did not play a role in lobbying /negotiating for the new
towing ordinance, that he stated that he did and did not act as a liaison on the
towing issue; that he denied matters that were not in dispute, that he denied the
established fact that he negotiated the towing fee increases, that he denied an
occurrence that Gagliardo already admitted, and that he made statement(s)
contrary to his sworn statement; and
Gagliardo, 03 -053
Page 30
- The Commission should find that Gagliardo intentionally violated Section 1103(g) of
the Ethics Act when he represented Vince's Towing before his former governmental
body, City Council, within one year of leaving such service and impose restitution of
$23,695 plus any other appropriate sanction.
The Respondent in his brief argues as follows:
- Gagliardo only made some appearances at public meetings to provide information
about the existing towing ordinance in the context of evaluation or changes, such as
the rates for towing;
- As an employee of Vince's Towing, Gagliardo received no additional compensation
for providing information to Council regarding fees for towing services;
- Gagliardo, Sr. did not authorize Gagliardo to represent Vince's Towing in
negotiations for the new towing contract;
- Although insurance rates for Vince's Towing increased, towing rates remained the
same in the three -year period prior to the enactment of the new ordinance;
- Towing fees had to increase in order for Vince's Towing to make a profit;
- Council member Schorn solely negotiated rate increases with Gagliardo, Sr.;
- All witnesses agreed on the reasonableness of the towing fee increases;
- The Investigative Division overstated the increases in fees under the new
ordinance/ towing contract at $36,295 due to an incorrect calculation of the fees
associated with rollback services;
- Council enacted the new towing ordinance over a year after Gagliardo left Council;
and
- Gagliardo attended Council meetings strictly on his own accord without any
additional compensation for his efforts.
Having highlighted the relevant facts in this case and the positions of the parties in
their briefs, we shall now apply the provisions of the Ethics Act to the above allegations.
As to the SFI allegations, Gagliardo has admitted and stipulated that he failed to file
the SFI forms for 2001 and 2002 calendar years. Gagliardo was required to file such
forms. Accordingly, Gagliardo violated Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act when he failed to
file SFI's for the 2001 and 2002 calendar years.
We will now review the Section 1103(g) allegation in the context of the above fact
findings. As noted above, Section 1103(g) of the Ethics Act prohibits a former public
official /public employee from representing a "person" (defined to include a business), 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).
The purpose behind the revolving door provisions of ethics laws was explained in
Forti v. New York State Ethics Commission, 75 N.Y.2d 596; 554 N.E.2d 876 (1990):
In general, the purpose of "revolving door" provisions such as those at
issue here is to prevent former government employees from unfairly profiting
Gagliardo, 03 -053
Page 31
from or otherwise trading upon the contacts, associations and special
knowledge that they acquired during their tenure as public servants... The
underlying premise is that "[former] officers should not be permitted to
exercise undue influence over former colleagues, still in office, in matters
pending before the agencies [and] they should not be permitted to utilize
information on specific cases gained during government service for their own
benefit and that of private clients. Both are forms of unfair advantage.
Id. at 879, 880.
Every element of Section 1103(g) has been implicated by Gagliardo's conduct in
this case. First, Gagliardo became a former public official when he left service on Council
on January 6, 2002. Shortly thereafter, Gagliardo began representing a person, Vince's
Towing, before the PWC and Council. Such representation entailed efforts on Gagliardo's
part to structure the new ordinance with higher fees and rates for Vince's Towing as well
as other substantive changes such as a removal of the requirement for a performance
bond by the towing service contractor. Such representation was done by Gagliardo with
actual compensation in that he was employed by Vince's Towing at that time. The
representation involved a matter before Gagliardo's former governmental body, namely,
the proposed towing ordinance. Lastly, such activity occurred within one year after
Gagliardo left Council in January of 2002. Accordingly, Gagliardo violated Section
1103(g) of the Ethics Act when he represented with compensation the business, Vince's
Towing, before his former governmental body, the City of Reading, within one year of
termination of service.
Gagliardo's actions in this case fly against both the spirit and the letter of Section
1103(g) of the Ethics Act. As noted above, this provision of the Ethics Act was specifically
enacted to prevent public officials and public employees after they leave governmental
service to capitalize upon their former position and contacts for a financial gain or
advantage. In the instant matter, Gagliardo intentionally engaged in exactly the type of
conduct that Section 1103(g) of the Ethics Act was enacted to prohibit. Through such
actions by Gagliardo, Vince's Towing received increases in towing fees and related
services under the new ordinance and contract.
Gagliardo nevertheless argues that he did not violate Section 1103(g) and raises a
legal issue regarding the meaning of the Section 1103(g) phraseology with promised or
actual compensation." Essentially, Respondent argues that although he is a compensated
employee of Vince's Towing, a violation of Section 1103(g) may not be found in this case
because the compensation he received from Vince's Towing during the time period under
review was not identified as payment for representation of Vince's Towing before his
former governmental body, Reading City government.
We reject Gagliardo's arguments and determine that he received compensation
from Vince's Towing at the time he represented that entity before his former governmental
body which fully satisfied the with promised or actual compensation" qualification of
Section 1103(g) of the Ethics Act. This conclusion results from a straightforward
application of the requirements for statutory construction.
First, "[t]he object of all interpretation and construction of statutes is to ascertain and
effectuate the intention of the General Assembly," and "[e]very statute shall be construed,
if possible, to give effect to all its provisions." 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(a).
It was the intention of the General Assembly that Section 1103(g) of the Ethics Act
would apply to prohibit a former public official from representing his employer before his
former governmental body, even if purportedly done so on a "volunteer" basis. This is
clear from the legislative debate that resulted in the amendment of the prior language of
with or without compensation" (Section 3(e), Act 170 of 1978) to the new language
Gagliardo, 03 -053
Page 32
prohibiting representation with promised or actual compensation" (Section 3(g), Act 9 of
1989):
Mr. McHALE. If in fact your amendment becomes law,
would a person who, for instance, goes to work for a bank and
who actively lobbies for pay in the Senate, having been a former
House member, be able to, quote, "volunteer" his time in
lobbying on House matters?
Mr. COHEN. No, Mr. Speaker; he would not.
Mr. McHALE. Could you amplify on that?
Mr. COHEN. A person who is a paid lobbyist in the
Senate or a paid lobbyist before any administrative agency is
receiving actual compensation. This amendment does not apply
to anybody who is receiving promised or actual compensation.
Mr. McHALE. What if that person is being actually
compensated on an hourly basis and he or she charges only for
the time in the Senate and does not charge for the time in the
House?
Mr. COHEN. I would say no, Mr. Speaker; that person
would not apply. What we are talking about is people who are
volunteers, who are receiving no compensation whatsoever. In
your case, there is implied promise that when the year goes, that
person's salary will apply to the House of Representatives as
well as the Senate, and we say that any promised or actual
compensation shall not be used.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, all I can say is this
amendment provides for no compensation whatsoever, no
compensation before the Senate, no compensation before any
other body. It is purely aimed at volunteer work... .
Legislative Journal of House, 1989 Session, No. 14, February 15, 1989, at 342 (Emphasis
added).
The above legislative debate establishes the legislative intent that the phraseology
with promised or actual compensation" include an employee representing his employer
before his former governmental body, even if the employee's compensation does not
include the time spent representing the employer before the former governmental body.
See also, Id., at 340 -341. (Violations of Section 3(g), now Section 1103(g), of the Ethics
Act may be found even when there is subterfuge to conceal the compensation).
Additionally, the non - technical, non - peculiar words and phrases of a statute are to
be construed according to rules of grammar and their common and approved usage. 1
Pa.C.S. § 1903(a). In considering the common and approved usage of the word "with," we
find the phraseology with promised or actual compensation" to be broader than the
meaning argued by Respondent. If the General Assembly had intended the meaning
argued by Respondent, it would undoubtedly have used the phraseology for promised or
actual compensation" rather than the phraseology with promised or actual compensation."
The word "for" is used where there is a direct connection between a particular payment
and particular services rendered, because the word "for" means "[I]n consideration for; as
Gagliardo, 03 -053
Page 33
an equivalent for; in exchange for; in place of; as where property is_ agreed to be given "for"
other property or "for" services." Black's Law Dictionary at 579 (5 ed. 1979). It stands in
sharp contrast with the broader, sweeping word "with," which is "[a] word denoting
relation of proximity, contiguity, or association." See, Black's Law Dictionary at 1436 (5
ed. 1979) (Citing White v. White, 183 Va. 239, 31 S.E.2d 558 (1944)). The General
Assembly, in using the word "with" instead of "for," intended that a violation of Section
1103(g) would be supported by compensation paid to a former public official /public
employee by his new employer, even if the compensation would not be specifically
identified as being for the prohibited representation.
Finally, even if the meaning of the phraseology with promised or actual
compensation" were not explicit, the intention of the General Assembly would be
ascertained by considering the factors set forth at 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(c). Those factors
include, inter alia, the occasion and necessity for the Ethics Act, the circumstances under
which the Ethics Act was enacted, the mischief it is to remedy, the object it is to attain, the
consequences of a particular interpretation, and the contemporaneous legislative history
(the latter of which we have already discussed above).
We note that the Ethics Act is remedial legislation, promulgated for the purpose of
restoring public confidence in government. See, Section 1, Act 170 of 1978; Section 1, Act
9 of 1989; 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101.1; Philips v. State Ethics Commission, 470 A.2d 659 (Pa.
Commw. 1984)). The purpose of Section 1103(g) of the Ethics Act is to prevent "revolving
door" conduct during the first year following termination of public service, such that former
public officials or public employees may not capitalize on their prior governmental service
by using their connections /influence with the former governmental body to affect
governmental actions for the benefit of private "persons." See, Confidential Opinion, 97-
008; Long, Opinions 97 -010 and 97- 010 -R; Shay, Opinion 91 -012; Legislative Journal of
House, 1989 Session, No. 14, February 15, 1989, at 341.
The consequences of Gagliardo's interpretation of the phraseology with promised
or actual compensation" would be the nullification of Section 1103(g) based upon the label
attached to compensation. The General Assembly never intended such an absurd result.
See, 1 Pa.C.S. § 1922(1). To the contrary, " ... the General Assembly intends to favor the
public interest as against any private interest," 1 Pa.C.S. § 1922(5); Crisci, Opinion 89-
013. The consequences of this Commission's interpretation are that the legislative intent
and specific purpose of Section 1103(g) of the Ethics Act will be achieved, and former
public officials /public employees will be prevented from circumventing Section 1103(g)
through the machination of the label attached to their compensation. Gagliardo in acting
contrary to the legislative intent and purpose as to Section 1103(g), violated that provision
of the Ethics Act.
Gagliardo's other related arguments are to no avail. The argument that Gagliardo
only provided information to his former governmental body merely confirms his
representation of Vince's Towing before his former governmental body in that providing
information is expressly within the ambit of "represent."
The claim by Gagliardo, Sr. that he did not authorize Gagliardo to represent Vince's
Towing is a mere assertion rather than an established fact. Matters involving the
reasonableness of towing fees, their fixed rate for three years, and the need to raise rates
for Vince's Towing to make a profit are irrelevant. Lastly, even though the new ordinance
was enacted beyond a year after Gagliardo left Council, he represented Vince's Towing
within the one year period of prohibition after he left the City.
Having determined that Gagliardo violated Sections 1104(a) and 1103(g) of the
Ethics Act, we will now consider the issue of financial payback. Section 407(13)/1107(13)
of the Ethics Act empowers this Commission to order payment of restitution plus interest in
Gagliardo, 03 -053
Page 34
instances where a public official /public employee has obtained a financial gain in violation
of the Ethics Act. Section 409(c)/1109(c) of the Ethics Act empowers this Commission to
impose a treble penalty against any person who obtains financial gain from violating the
Ethics Act. Section 404(d)/1104(d) of the Ethics Act provides, inter alia, that no public
official shall receive compensation from public funds unless he has filed a statement of
financial interests as required by the Ethics Act. 65 Pa.C.S. § 1104(d).
As a former public official, Gagliardo obtained a financial gain in violation of Section
1103(g) of the Ethics Act when he represented with compensation the business, Vince's
Towing, before his former governmental body, the City of Reading, within one year of
termination of service, which representation resulted in Vince's Towing receiving increased
towing fees in 2003 under a new amended towing ordinance.
Additionally, Gagliardo received compensation as a Reading City Council Member
to which he was not entitled, because he failed to fulfill all of the statutory requirements of
Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act pertaining to the filing of SFIs. (See, Investigative
Complaint, paragraphs 10, 84; Reply to Investigative Complaint, paragraphs 10, 84; Fact
Finding 68). See also, Bartholomew v. SEC, 795 A.2d 1073 (Pa. Commw. 2002). Cf.,
Draper, Order 1229; Forrest, Order 1230; Huhn, Order 431.
In the instant matter, we would have the discretion to order various forms and
amounts of payback ranging from a treble penalty of the financial gain received in violation
of Section 1103(g) of the Ethics Act to reimbursement of Council Member compensation
received by Gagliardo, who failed to fully comply with Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act.
The Investigative Division seeks a payback of $23,695 based upon Gagliardo's
violation of Section 1103(g) of the Ethics Act. However, based upon an application of the
law to the facts in this particular case, and in the exercise of our discretion, we determine
that the appropriate payback by Gagliardo is in the lesser amount of $5,000. Therefore,
we direct Gagliardo to make payment in the amount of $5,000 to the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania through this Commission within 30 days of the date of mailing of this Order.
We shall refer this case to the appropriate law enforcement agency for review as to
the institution of a criminal proceeding, which referral we believe to be appropriate as to
Gagliardo's violation of Section 1103(g).
Finally, we direct Gagliardo to file full, complete and accurate SFIs for calendar
years 2001 and 2002 with the filing office of the City of Reading within 30 days of the date
of mailing of this Order with copies filed with this Commission for compliance verification
purposes.
Any failure by Gagliardo to comply with the within directives to him will result in the
institution of an order enforcement action.
IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
1. Gagliardo, as a former member of Reading City Council, was a former public official
subject to the provisions of Act 9 of 1989 as codified by Act 93 of 1998.
2. Gagliardo violated Section 1103(g) of the Ethics Act when he represented with
compensation the business, Vince's Towing, before his former governmental body,
the City of Reading, within one year of termination of service.
3. Gagliardo violated Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act in both instances when he
failed to file Statements of Financial Interests for the 2001 and 2002 calendar
years.
Gagliardo, 03 -053
Page 35
In Re: Vincent Gagliardo, Jr.
ORDER NO. 1369
Chair Louis W. Fryman did not participate in this matter.
File Docket: 03 -053
Date Decided: 6/6/05
Date Mailed: 6/17/05
1 Gagliardo, as a former member of Reading City Council, violated Section 1103(g) of
the Ethics Act when he represented with compensation the business, Vince's
Towing, before his former governmental body, the City of Reading, within one year
of termination of service.
2. Gagliardo violated Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act in both instances when he
failed to file Statements of Financial Interests for the 2001 and 2002 calendar
years.
3. Gagliardo is directed to make a payment of $5,000 within 30 days of the date of
mailing of this order to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania through this
Commission. Non - compliance will result in the institution of an order enforcement
action.
4. Gagliardo is directed to file full, complete and accurate SFI's for the calendar years
2001 and 2002 with the filing office of the City of Reading within 30 days of the date
of mailing of this order with copies filed with this Commission for compliance
verification purposes. Failure to comply will result in the institution of an order
enforcement action.
5. We will refer this case to the appropriate law enforcement agency for review as to
the institution of a criminal proceeding.
BY THE COMMISSION,
John J. Bolger, Vice Chair