Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1372 SchlegelIn Re: Linda Schlegel File Docket: 03 -002 X -ref: Order No. 1372 Date Decided: 9/12/05 Date Mailed: 9/21/05 Before: Louis W. Fryman, Chair John J. Bolger, Vice Chair Donald M. McCurdy Raquel K. Bergen Nicholas A. Colafella 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 allegations. Upon completion of its investigation, the Investigative Division issued and served upon Respondent a Findings Report identified as an "Investigative Complaint." An Answer was filed and a hearing was waived. A Consent Agreement and Stipulation of Findings were submitted by the parties to the Commission for consideration. The Stipulation of Findings is quoted as the Findings in this Order. The Consent Agreement was subsequently approved. Effective December 15, 1998, Act 9 of 1989 was repealed and replaced by Chapter 11 of Act 93 of 1998, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq., which essentially repeats Act 9 of 1989 and provides for the completion of pending matters under Act 93 of 1998. This adjudication of the State Ethics Commission is issued under Act 93 of 1998 and will be made available as a public document thirty days after the mailing date noted above. However, reconsideration may be requested. Any reconsideration request must be received at this Commission within thirty days of the mailing date and must include a detailed explanation of the reasons as to why reconsideration should be granted in conformity with 51 Pa. Code § 21.29(b). A request for reconsideration will not affect the finality of this adjudication but will defer its public release pending action on the request by the Commission. The files in this case will remain confidential in accordance with Chapter 11 of Act 93 of 1998. Any person who violates confidentiality of the Ethics Act is guilty of a misdemeanor subject to a fine of not more than $1,000 or imprisonment for not more than one year. Confidentiality does not preclude discussing this case with an attorney at law. Schlegel, 03 -002 Page 2 I. ALLEGATION: Linda Schlegel, a public official /public employee, in her capacity as a Member of the Penn Hills School District Board of Directors, violated Sections 1103(a); 1103(c); 1105(b)94)(5)(8)(9) provisions of the State Ethics Act (Act 93 of 1998), 65 Pa. C.S. § §1103(a), 1103(c) and 1105(b)(4)(5)(8)(9) when she used the authority of her office for the private pecuniary gain of herself and /or Grand Occasions Catering, a business with which she is associated, including but not limited to making purchases of food items from the district and a vendor at discounted rates; and when she failed to pay for food items purchased from the school district; and when she failed to disclose on Statements of Financial Interests income received from and her financial interest in Grand Occasions Catering filed for the 1999, 2000 and 2001 calendar years; when she failed to disclose on Statements of Financial Interests Day Chevrolet as a creditor in excess of $6,500.00 for the 2001 and 2002 calendar year; and when she used the authority of her public position for the private pecuniary benefit of herself and /or a member of her immediate family, including but not limited to demanding a reduced interest rate for a vehicle loan for her daughter in return for her action as a board member to approve vehicle bids submitted by Day Chevrolet for the sale of vehicles to the school district. II. FINDINGS: 1. Linda Schlegel (Schlegel) has served as a member of the Board of Directors of the Penn Hills School District (PHSD), Allegheny County, since December 1993. 2. Penn Hills School District's (PHSD) annual budget is over forty -five million dollars ($45,000,0000.00). 3. Since 1989, the PHSD had a practice of selling bulk food items through the Food Service Department at cost to individuals and organizations. 4. These sales enabled PHSD to obtain greater discounts by increasing the quantity of its purchases, as well as to support the PHSD general population and various civic and community activities. 5. The availability of PHSD food items for purchase was generally known throughout the community. 6. Pat DeGore, the Penn Hills School District Director of Food Service, approached members of the PHSD School Board, including Respondent, Linda Schlegel (Schlegel), and asked them to purchase or encourage others to purchase PHSD food supplies as a way of benefiting PHSD and the community. 7 PHSD has won awards for its food service program, such as the Department of Educations Best Practices Award, sponsored by the United States Department of Agriculture. PHSD's involvement of members of the community and community groups in food purchases complies with the United States Department of Agriculture's recommendations. 8. No written policies or procedures have been adopted by PHSD board of directors relating to and /or regulating the sale of bulk items. a. No district established guidelines exist as to groups who can participate in the type of program. 9. Schlegel has been employed by the Beulah Christian Preschool (Beulah Pre - School), a non - profit charitable organization, in Penn Hills, since about 1994. Schlegel, 03 -002 Page 3 10. In order to financially support herself and her family, Schlegel has also been involved in catering, on a part -time basis, since about 1989. 11. Schlegel's catering activities, as material and relevant, consisted of providing food for a school hot lunch program for the Beulah Pre - School children and supplying food to various community events and organizations at minimal prices. 12. Schlegel's school hot lunch program at Beulah Pre - School was at the direction of Beulah Pre - School which chose not to pay wages to Schlegel as an employee for the hours for this program. a. Schlegel would have earned more as an employee than she does by catering. 13. Schlegel also assisted Beulah Pre - School from time to time in purchasing PHSD food directly for Beulah Pre - School for pre - school functions. 14. The Beulah Pre - School families paid less than two dollars and fifty cents ($2.50) per day for the hot lunches, milk, food supplies, and the cooking, serving, and supervision of the lunch program. 15. Approximately 15 -25 children participate in the program. a. Participation fluctuates weekly and monthly. 16. Schlegel also was asked to cater and /or provide food for Penn Hills community events, such as the Ninth Grade Dinner Dance sponsored by the PHSD, PTA, and the Martin Luther King Day Dinner, sponsored by the Penn Hills Clergy Association. 17. Both the PTA and the Penn Hills Clergy Association are non - profit community organizations. 18. Schlegel purchased some food items for the hot lunch program and for these Penn Hills community events from PHSD. Schlegel also purchased other food supplies and catering items from Sam's Club and other retail establishments. Schlegel also cooked food and provided serving and set -up services. 19. Schlegel paid in full for all of her purchases from PHSD by cash or check. 20. On or about March 21, 2002, Schlegel paid the outstanding balance on food she had purchased for the preschool hot lunch program. a. Schlegel issued personal check #0091, dated 3/21/02, in the amount of $1,471.32, to the Penn Hills School District. 1. Noted in the memo section is "pd in full ". b. The check, forwarded to Assistant Business Manager Bruce Dakan, was deposited into the district General Fund. 21. The outstanding balance owed by Schlegel was for ten purchases she had made between 10/02/01 and 3/11/02. 22. Schlegel purchases from the PHSD were for minimal amounts. The Beulah Pre - School hot lunch purchases ranged from only seven dollars and eighty -eight cents ($7.88) to one hundred eighty -to dollars and sixty -eight cents ($182.68) over a two (2) year period. Schlegel, 03 -002 Page 4 Day Chevrolet 23. Day Chevrolet is an automobile /truck dealership located at 1600 Golden Mile Highway, Monroeville, PA 15146. 24. PHSD is an associate member of the Central Westmoreland Council of Government (COG) and participates in its piggyback program. 25. The COG piggyback program provides to school districts the opportunity to obtain vehicles with the needed specifications within a reasonable period of time, at competitive prices. 26. Day Chevrolet's Fleet Sales Division participates in the COG piggyback program. As such, from time to time, PHSD indirectly obtains vehicles from Day Chevrolet. a. This included the July 12, 2002 purchase of two (2) replacement maintenance vehicles from COG, with Day Chevrolet supplying the cab and chassis and utility bodies supplied by another company, Zoresco. 27. In the end of May, 2001, Schlegel went to Day Chevrolet and other care dealers to look at vehicles, including the possible purchase of a vehicle by her daughter for her daughter's use. a. In early June, 2001, Day Chevrolet's representative called Schlegel and requested that she return because there was a vehicle that he thought she and her daughter might consider. b. Schlegel returned to Day Chevrolet, was shown the vehicle, and generally discussed price and terms with Day Chevrolet personnel. 28. On June 7, 2001, Schlegel returned to Day Chevrolet with her daughter. Schlegel believed that Day Chevrolet reached an agreement on all terms with Schlegel and her daughter, including a twelve and three - quarter percent (12.75 %) interest rate and that final contracts were signed. a. At that time, Schlegel believed the only reason her daughter did not take possession of the vehicle that night was because Schlegel and her daughter had come in separate cars and there was no one to drive the new car. 29. On Friday, June 8, 2005, the very next day, Schlegel and her daughter returned to Day Chevrolet to pick up the new car. a. Schlegel was told that the car was not available on the terms she thought were previously agreed, that the paperwork had been destroyed, and that a new more costly deal was required, now requiring an sixteen and three - quarter percent (16.75 %) interest rate. 30. Schlegel became extremely frustrated, accused Day Chevrolet of engaging in "bait and switch" and dishonest sales tactics. Day Chevrolet personnel assert that Schlegel mentioned her position on the PHSD School Board and assert that she said that PHSD should not deal with dishonest vendors. 31. Schlegel immediately attempted to contact attorneys to determine her rights. Schlegel was able to successfully contact Lawrence Maiello of Maiello, Brungo & Maiello, LLP. Schlegel, 03 -002 Page 5 32. On Saturday, June 9, 2004, John Prorok, an associate of Mr. Maiello's, sent a letter to Day Chevrolet setting forth the illegality of Day Chevrolet's actions, demanding relief, and indicating that suit would follow if a satisfactory settlement was not reached. 33. Under threat of this lawsuit, Day Chevrolet provided Schlegel and her daughter with an agreement along the lines of her original deal, including the twelve and three - quarter percent (12.75 %) interest rate. 34. On June 12, 2001, the purchase of the two (2) utility vehicles from COG to be supplied by Day Chevrolet and Zoresco was approved by the PHSD School Board. 35. Schlegel never approached any school board member to block the purchase of the trucks, nor did she oppose the purchase at the PHSD School Board meeting. Statements of Financial Interests 36. Schlegel annually filed Statements of Financial Interest as a member of the PHSD School Board. 37. Schlegel failed to disclose her catering activities as a source of income on Statements of Financial Interests filed for calendar years 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002. 38. Schlegel failed to disclose on Statements of Financial Interests for the 2001 and 2002 calendar years GMAC as a creditor in excess of $6,500. 39. Schlegel incorrectly thought that GMAC did not need to be listed because the car was her daughter's vehicle and her daughter was making the payments, although Schlegel was listed as a co- signer. 40. Schlegel has amended her forms in relation to the foregoing deficiencies. III. DISCUSSION: At all times relevant to this matter, the Respondent, Linda Schlegel, hereinafter Schlegel, has been a public official /employee subject to the provisions of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Law, Act 9 of 1989, Pamphlet Law 26, 65 P.S. § 401, et seq., as codified by the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act, Act 93 of 1998, Chapter 11, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq., which Acts are referred to herein as the "Ethics Act." The allegations are that Schlegel, in her capacity as a Member of the Penn Hills School District Board of Directors, violated Sections 1103(a), 1103(c), and 1105(b)(4)(5)(8)(9) of the Ethics Act when she used the authority of her office for the private pecuniary gain of herself or Grand Occasions Catering, a business with which she is associated, including but not limited to making purchases of food items from the district and a vendor at discounted rates; when she failed to pay for food items purchased from the school district; when she failed to disclose on Statements of Financial Interests (SFIs) income received from and her financial interest in Grand Occasions Catering filed for the 1999, 2000 and 2001 calendar years; when she failed to disclose on SFIs Day Chevrolet as a creditor in excess of $6,500.00 for the 2001 and 2002 calendar year; and when she used the authority of her public position for the private pecuniary benefit of herself or a member of her immediate family, including but not limited to demanding a reduced interest rate for a vehicle loan for her daughter in return for her action as a board member to approve vehicle bids submitted by Day Chevrolet for the sale of vehicles to the school district. Schlegel, 03 -002 Page 6 Pursuant to Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, a public official /public employee is prohibited from engaging in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest. The term "conflict of interest" is defined under Act 9 of 1989/Act 93 of 1998 as follows: Section 1102. Definitions "Conflict" or "conflict of interest." Use by a public official or public employee of the authority of his office or employment or any confidential information received through his holding public office or employment for the private pecuniary benefit of himself, a member of his immediate family or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. "Conflict" or "conflict of interest" does not include an action having a de minimis economic impact or which affects to the same degree a class consisting of the general public or a subclass consisting of an industry, occupation or other group which includes the public official or public employee, a member of his immediate family or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. 65 P.S. § 402/65 Pa.C.S. § 1102. Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act prohibits a public official /public employee from using the authority of public office /employment or confidential information received by holding such a public position for the private pecuniary benefit of the public official /public employee himself, any member of his immediate family, or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. Section 1103. Restricted Activities (c) 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. 65 P.S. § 403(c)/65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(c). Section 1103(c) of the Ethics Act quoted above 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. Section 1105(b)(5) of the Ethics Act requires that every public official /public employee and candidate list the name and address of any direct or indirect source of income totaling in the aggregate of $1,300 or more. Section 1105(b)(4) of the Ethics Act requires that every public official /public employee and candidate list the name and address of each creditor to whom is owed in excess of $6,500 and the interest rate. Loans or credit extended between members of the Schlegel, 03 -002 Page 7 immediate family and mortgage securing real property which is the principal or secondary residence of the person filing shall not be included. As noted above, the parties have submitted a Consent Agreement and Stipulation of Findings. The parties' Stipulated Findings are reproduced above as the Findings of this Commission. We shall now summarize the relevant facts as contained therein. Schlegel has been a member of the Board of Directors of the Penn Hills School District (PHSD) since December 1993. In a private capacity, Schlegel is employed by the Beulah Christian Pre - School, a non - profit charitable organization in Penn Hills, Allegheny County. Since 1989, Schlegel has also been involved in providing catering services that include providing food for a school hot lunch program for Beulah Pre - School children and for various community events and organizations at minimal prices. PHSD has a practice of selling bulk food items through its Food Service Department at cost to individuals and organizations. This enables PHSD to obtain greater discounts through quantity purchases as well as support the general population and various civic and community activities. The Director of the PHSD Food Service Department approached members of the Board, including Schlegel, and asked them to purchase food supplies as a way of benefiting PHSD and the community. However, there are no written policies or procedures that have been adopted by the PHSD Board relating to the sale of bulk food items. Schlegel assisted the Beulah Pre - School in purchasing PHSD food for pre - school functions. Schlegel also provided catering services for Penn Hills community events, such as a 9 th grade dinner /dance, PTA, and a Martin Luther King Day dinner. Such events were typically sponsored by non - profit community organizations. Schlegel purchased and paid in full for food items for the hot lunch program. In addition, Schlegel purchased food supplies from other retail establishments, cooked the food and provided serving and set up services. Schlegel's purchases from PHSD typically involved minimal amounts ranging from $7.88 to $182.68 over a two year period. Separate and apart from the above, PHSD participates in a COG program whereby school districts are able to obtain vehicles with certain specifications within a reasonable time period at competitive prices. Day Chevrolet, an automotive /truck dealership located in Monroeville, participates in the COG program. PHSD on occasion has obtained vehicles from Day Chevrolet. In May 2001, Schlegel went to Day Chevrolet and other dealers for the purpose of obtaining a vehicle for her daughter. In June, Schlegel and her daughter revisited Day Chevrolet and Schlegel believed that an agreement had been reached on a vehicle for her daughter which included a loan interest rate of 12.75 %. However, on the following day when Schlegel and her daughter returned to Day Chevrolet to pick up the car, she was informed that the interest rate would be 16.75 %. Schlegel became upset and accused Day Chevrolet of engaging in dishonest "bait and switch" sales tactics. Personnel at Day Chevrolet assert that Schlegel mentioned her position on the PHSD Board and that PHSD would not deal with dishonest vendors. Schlegel then contacted an attorney who sent a letter to Day Chevrolet demanding relief and threatening legal action. Subsequently, Day Chevrolet provided Schlegel and her daughter with an agreement which included a loan interest rate of 12.75 %. On June 12, 2001, two vehicles under the COG program were supplied by Day Chevrolet to PHSD after the School Board gave its approval. Schlegel never approached any school board member to block the purchase of the vehicles nor did she oppose the purchase at the school board meeting. Schlegel, 03 -002 Page 8 Finally, regarding the SFIs that Schlegel was annually required to file as a member of the PHSD School Board, she failed to disclose sources of income from her catering activities for the calendar years 1999 through 2002. In addition, Schlegel failed to disclose GMAC as a creditor in excess of $6,500 on her SFIs for the 2001 and 2000 calendar years. Schlegel has already amended her SFIs to list the above deficiencies. Having highlighted the Stipulated Findings and issues before us, we shall now apply the Ethics Act to determine the proper disposition of this case. The parties' Consent Agreement sets forth a proposed resolution of the allegations. The Consent Agreement proposes that this Commission will find the following: "3. The Investigative Division will recommend the following in relation to the above allegations: a. That no violation of Section 1103(a) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Law, 65 Pa. C.S. §1103(a) occurred in relation to Schlegel purchasing food items from the district and a school district vendor, at discounted rates for use in her catering activities, as there was no use of the authority of office by Schlegel to make such purchases from the district or the vendor. b. That no violation of Section 1103(a) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Law, 65 Pa. C.S. §1103(a) occurred in relation to Schlegel failing to pay for food items purchased from the school district, as Schlegel paid for all food purchased. c. That a technical violation of Sections 1105(b) 4(5)(8)(9), of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Law, S 65 Pa. C.. § §1105(b)(4)(5)(8)(9) occurred when Schlegel failed to disclose on Statements of Financial Interests Day Chevrolet as a creditor in excess of $6,500.00 for the 2001 and 2002 calendar years. d. That a violation of Section 1103(a) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Law, 65 Pa. C.S. §1103(a) occurred when Schlegel identified her position on the Penn Hills School District during her personal dispute with Day Chevrolet. e. That no violation of Section 1103(e) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Law occurred since Schlegel did not demand a reduced interest rate in return for her actions as a Board member. 4. In relation to 3(c) above, Schlegel has agreed to make payments in the total amount of two hundred -fifty dollars ($250.00), payable to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and forwarded to the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission. Said payments may be at twenty -five dollars ($25.00) per month for ten (10) months, after the issuance of the final adjudication in this matter. No penalty will be imposed in relation to 3(d)." [sic] Consent Agreement, 1[3, ¶4. As to the allegations concerning Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, it is necessary to show that Schlegel, as a public official, used the authority of office to obtain a private pecuniary benefit for herself or business with which she was associated. If any of the requisite elements for Section 1103(a) are absent, there can be no violation of that provision of the Ethics Act. See, Stathas, Order 1321. As to the purchases of food for the Beulah Hot Lunch Program or for other events in the community that were sponsored Schlegel, 03 -002 Page 9 by non - profit organizations, Schlegel made such purchases in a private capacity and not as a PHSD Board member. In this regard, we note that PHSD had a policy that encouraged individuals and organizations to purchase food supplies from the school district. Such actions would benefit PHSD through a larger quantity of bulk purchases as well as the individuals or organizations that purchased the food items at better prices. Accordingly, Schlegel did not violate Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act regarding the purchases of food from PHSD or vendors in that there was no use of authority of office by Schlegel. Similarly, when Schlegel purchased such food items, she paid in full for such purchases. Given that Schlegel paid for the items in full, there was no financial gain or private pecuniary benefit to Schlegel. Accordingly, Schlegel did not violate Section 1103(a) regarding purchases of food items from PHSD in that Schlegel paid in full for all such food purchases. Finally, per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Schlegel violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when she identified herself as a Board member of PHSD during her dispute with Day Chevrolet. Turning to Section 1103(c) of the Ethics Act, a violation of this Section of the Ethics Acts is predicated upon an understanding that the action of the public official is connected to the receipt of something of something of monetary value. In the case of the vehicle purchase, Schlegel appeared as a private citizen with her daughter and attempted to purchase a vehicle from Day Chevrolet. The facts of record do not show that Schlegel's demand for the reduced interest rate was based on any understanding, vis a vis her actions as a school board member. The record reflects that the demand by Schlegel was based upon her claim that Day Chevrolet attempted to raise the interest rates higher than what was agreed between her and the dealership. Accordingly, Schlegel did not violate Section 1103(c) of the Ethics Act regarding a demand for a reduced interest rate in that there was no understanding that her actions as a School Board member would be influenced thereby. Turning to the SFI allegations regarding the failure to disclose sources of income and a creditor, it appears that the Investigative Division, through the exercise or prosecutorial discretion, has chosen not to pursue the SFI allegation regarding the sources of income. Accordingly, we will treat such action as a non -pros by the Investigative Division. In this regard, we do note that Schlegel has already amended her forms to include the sources of income as to her catering services as well as the creditor issue. Regarding the matter of her failure to disclose GMAC as a creditor for the 2001 -2002 calendar year SFIs, the Stipulated Findings reflect the failure to disclose GMAC as a creditor. Accordingly, Schlegel technically violated Section 1105(b)(4) of the Ethics Act when she failed to disclose GMAC as a creditor that was owed in excess of $6,500 for the SFI calendar years 2001 and 2002. We determine that the Consent Agreement submitted by the parties sets forth the proper disposition for this case, based upon our review as reflected in the above analysis and the totality of the facts and circumstances. Accordingly, Schlegel is directed to make payment in the total amount of $250.00 payable to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and forwarded to the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission. Said payments may be at $25.00 per month for ten (10) months, after the issuance of the final adjudication in this matter. Compliance with the foregoing will result in the closing of this case with no further action by this Commission. Noncompliance will result in the institution of an order enforcement action. IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: 1. Linda Schlegel, ( "Schlegel "), as a Member of the Penn Hills School District Board of Directors, is a public official /employee subject to the provisions of Act 9 of 1989 as codified by Act 93 of 1998. Schlegel, 03 -002 Page 10 2. Schlegel did not violate Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when she purchased food items from the district and a school district vendor at discounted rates for use in her catering activities, as there was no use of the authority of office by Schlegel to make such purchases. 3. Schlegel did not violate Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act as to obtaining food items from the school district, as Schlegel paid for all food items that were purchased. 4. Schlegel technically violated Sections 1105(b)(4) of the Ethics Act when she failed to disclose on Statements of Financial Interests Day Chevrolet /GMAC as a creditor in excess of $6,500.00 for the 2001 and 2002 calendar years. 5. Schlegel violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when she identified her position on the Penn Hills School District during a personal dispute with Day Chevrolet. 6. Schlegel did not violate Section 1103(c) of the Ethics Act in that she did not demand a reduced interest rate from Day Chevrolet on the purchase of a vehicle in return for her actions as a Board member. In Re: Linda Schlegel File Docket: 03 -002 Date Decided: 9/12/05 Date Mailed: 9/21/05 ORDER NO. 1372 1 Linda Schlegel, ( "Schlegel "), as a Member of the Penn Hills School District Board of Directors, did not violate Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when she purchased food items from the district and a school district vendor at discounted rates for use in her catering activities, as there was no use of the authority of office by Schlegel to make such purchases. 2. Schlegel did not violate Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act as to obtaining food items from the school district, as Schlegel paid for all food items that were purchased. 3. Schlegel technically violated Sections 1105(b)(4) of the Ethics Act when she failed to disclose on Statements of Financial Interests Day Chevrolet /GMAC as a creditor in excess of $6,500.00 for the 2001 and 2002 calendar years. 4. Schlegel violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when she identified her position on the Penn Hills School District during a personal dispute with Day Chevrolet. 5. Schlegel did not violate Section 1103(c) of the Ethics Act in that she did not demand a reduced interest rate from Day Chevrolet on the purchase of a vehicle in return for her actions as a Board member. 6. Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Schlegel is directed to make payment in the total amount of $250.00 payable to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and forwarded to the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission. Said payments may be at $25.00 per month for ten (10) months, after the issuance of the final adjudication in this matter. a. Compliance with the foregoing will result in the closing of this case with no further action by this Commission. b. Non - compliance will result in the institution of an order enforcement action. BY THE COMMISSION, Louis W. Fryman, Chair