HomeMy WebLinkAbout1378 YoungIn Re: Wilbert Young
File Docket:
X -ref:
Date Decided:
Date Mailed:
Before: Louis W. Fryman, Chair
John J. Bolger, Vice Chair
Donald M. McCurdy
Raquel K. Bergen
Nicholas A. Colafella
04 -021
Order No. 1378
9/12/05
9/21/05
This is a final adjudication of the State Ethics Commission.
Procedurally, the Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission conducted
an investigation regarding a possible violation of the Public Official and Employee Ethics
Act, Act 9 of 1989, P.L. 26, 65 P.S. § 401 et seq., as codified by Act 93 of 1998, Chapter
11, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq., by the above -named Respondent. At the commencement of
its investigation, the Investigative Division served upon Respondent written notice of the
specific 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 deemed 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Effective December 15, 1998, Act 9 of 1989 was repealed and replaced by Chapter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.
Young, 04 -021
Page 2
I. ALLEGATION:
That Wilbert Young, a public official /public employee, in his capacity as Mayor of
the City of Wilkinsburg, Allegheny County, violated Sections 1103(a) and 1105(b)(5)(8)
provisions of the State Ethics Act (Act 93 of 1998), 65 Pa.C.S. § §1103(a) and
1105(b)(5)(8) when he used the authority of his office for a private pecuniary gain,
including but not limited to obtaining a cellular telephone at borough expense without
council approval and utilizing a cellular telephone supplied by the borough to make
personal telephone calls; and when he used the authority of his public position for the
private pecuniary benefit of himself and /or a business with which he is associated by
negotiating, as mayor, to obtain a property from a borough resident to satisfy a delinquent
property tax bill and subsequently converted the property to 827 Partnership, a business
with which he is associated; and when he used the authority of his public position to use
borough equipment, facilities and personnel in support of his private businesses; and when
he failed to disclose on Statements of Financial Interests filed for the 2002 and 2003
calendar years, sources of income and offices, directorships or employment in businesses.
II. FINDINGS:
1. Wilbert A. Young has served as Mayor of the Borough of Wilkinsburg, Allegheny
County, since 1998.
2. Records of the Pennsylvania Department of State confirm that Young incorporated
W.A. Young Company, Inc, on 01/20/99.
a. Wilbert A. Young and Meredith W. Young, 575 Ardmore Boulevard,
Pittsburgh, PA 15219 are listed as the incorporators.
1. Meredith Young is Wilbert Young's spouse.
b. Young is listed as the president and treasurer, and Meredith Young as the
secretary.
3. Companies in which Young has a financial interest, is an officer or director or
otherwise operates, in addition to W.A. Young Company, Inc., include:
Franklin Avenue Associates
Sherman Street Associates
827 Partnership
NEMO Investments Inc.
Housing Development Partnership
4. Franklin Avenue Associates, Shermon Street Associates, 827 Partnership and
Housing Development Partnership are paper companies formed by Young for the
purpose of acquiring properties, mainly in the borough of Wilkinsburg.
a. Sherman Street Associates was a name used by Young when securing
ownership of 1116 Sherman Street, Wilkinsburg.
b. Housing Development Partnership was a name used by Young to obtain
ownership of five properties located in Wilkinsburg from David Bradbury.
The properties are:
c. 827 Partnership was as name used by Young in 2001, when acquiring
property at 827 Holland Avenue, Wilkinsburg.
d. None of the above entities created by Young are incorporated or registered
Young, 04 -021
Page 3
as fictitious names with Pennsylvania Department of State Corporation
Bureau.
5. Young consulting business, W.A. Young Company, and all of his other companies,
utilize residence address, 575 Ardmore Boulevard, Wilkinsburg, PA 15221.
a. Young does not maintain a separate office from which to conduct his
businesses.
6. Young holds an active real estate license through the Pennsylvania Department of
State Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs.
7 Young has been affiliated with Prudential Realty Company since approximately
1996.
a. Prudential Realty Company is in a property management business with a
limited involvement in housing sales.
b. Young is an independent contractor in the area of sales.
c. Young's compensation is based on commission.
8. Young does not utilize the offices of the Prudential Realty Company office on South
Water Street, Pittsburgh.
a. The contact telephone number Young provided to the owner of the company
was that of his borough cellular telephone and his borough office telephone.
b. Young also used his home telephone and his personal telephone number as
contacts.
c. Young has not brought any real estate business to the office since at least
April 22, 2002.
The following findings relate to Young's use of his position in negotiating to obtain a
property from a borough resident to satisfy a delinquent property tax bill and
subsequently converting the property to 827 Partnership, a business with which he
is associated.
9. Alan and Patricia Middlemiss owned property at 827 Holland Avenue, Wilkinsburg
since 1976.
a. They initially lived in the house but in 1991 they moved and retained the
house as rental property.
b. In approximately 1994 they entered into a contract for the sale of the house.
10. In or around 1996, the Middlemiss' became aware that the buyer was not paying the
property taxes.
a. The Middlemiss' began receiving bills for unpaid taxes.
b. Numerous attempts to compel the buyer to pay the taxes went unheeded.
c. In 1998, the buyer stopped paying the installment payments.
Young, 04 -021
Page 4
11. The Middlemisses subsequently regained possession of the property, attempted to
sell or give away the dwelling due to the building's poor condition and the amount
owed on back taxes.
12. In or about November 2001 Patricia Middlemiss called the Wilkinsburg Mayor's
office in an effort to determine if the Borough could help them with the taxes.
a. She believed that the mayor would be the borough official they would need
to deal with.
b. Patricia Middlemiss was directed to Wilbert Young.
13. The Middlemiss' were not interested in keeping the house even if the taxes could
have been forgiven for them.
a. Young informed Patricia Middlemiss that there was an individual working for
the borough who might be interested in the property.
14. On November 26, 2001, approximately one week after Patricia Middlemiss first
contacted Young, the Middlemiss' transferred ownership of 827 Holland Avenue.
a. Young assured the Middlemiss' that they would no longer be responsible for
the unpaid taxes or anything else to do with the house.
15. Young provided all of the paperwork necessary for the property transfer.
16. The Deed signed by the Middlemisses identified the buyer' as 827 Partnership.
a. The Tax Address listed on the Deed for 827 Partnership is 575 Ardmore
Boulevard, Young's home address.
b. 827 Partnership is a paper company created by Young to secure the
property at 827 Holland Avenue.
17. The Deed reflects that the Middlemiss' received $4,000.00 as a result of the
transfer of the property.
a. The Middlemiss' received no payments from Young for 827 Partnership.
b. Young told them that it was necessary to list an amount on the Deed for tax
purposes.
18. Young sent Patricia Middlemiss an email on 11/27/01 confirming the transaction
and that they had not been paid for the property.
19. On March 25, 2002, Patricia Middlemiss e- mailed Young and requested a copy of
the note from the title company verifying that the judgment on 827 Holland Avenue
had been satisfied, and a letter from him confirming that they did not receive any
funds for the property that they transferred to 827 Partnership.
a. On March 25, 2002, Young responded as follows:
"Hi Patti
I will forward to you a settlement statement as soon as the transfer to
the new owner is complete. I also would like to indicate that the
consideration mentioned in the deed between you and 827
Young, 04 -021
Page 5
Partnership of $4,000.00 was used toward outstanding debt on the
property. There were no funds exchanged between the Middlemiss
and 827 Partnership.
Wilbert"
20. Patricia and Alan Middlemiss filed a joint 2001 U.S. Individual Federal Income Tax
Return Form 1040, on which they reported the conveyance of the 827 Holland
Avenue property to the Borough of Wilkinsburg.
21. In April 2003, while refinancing the mortgage on their house, the Middlemiss
realized that they were still listed on the property taxes for 827 Holland Avenue.
a. Patricia Middlemiss again contacted Young and asked him to file an
amended municipal claim to have their names removed from the tax roll
regarding the property.
b. Young advised that he would straighten things out, and call them back.
22. Between April 2003 and September 2003 Patricia Middlemiss made numerous
contacts in an effort to have their names removed from the property.
a. On September 17, 2003 Middlemiss spoke with Young who told them that he
would make an inquiry as to why they were still listed on the docket.
b. Young did advise Patricia Middlemiss that he had sold the property to
Allegheny County Rentals.
23. On September 24, 2003, Patricia Middlemiss sent a letter directed to Wilkinsburg
Borough Solicitor Patricia McGrail recounting the history of the property and her
dealings with Mayor Young documenting the history of the property, including their
unsuccessful efforts to sell the property for $100.00 as follows:
a. Middlemiss contacted the Mayor of Wilkinsburg to see if he could help them
with the back taxes and liens.
b. The Mayor, Young, told them the unpaid taxes would go along with the
house, and they would be relieved of the burden of the unpaid taxes as all
delinquent taxes would be paid at closing.
c. The Mayor told them that the Borough would probably be able to relieve the
new owner of the taxes, and the new owner would be able to purchase the
house for very little.
d. Upon refinancing their house in 04/03, the Holland Avenue taxes came up.
e. Middlemiss personally took the Praecipe to Satisfy Judgments to Mayor
Young's office, and asked him to file it with the Allegheny County
Prothonotary.
1. In September 2003, when Middlemiss asked Young if he had filed the
Praecipe, he blamed his office for mixing things up with the records.
f. Middlemiss informed the Mayor that he needed to file an amended municipal
claim to have their names removed for the 827 Holland Avenue tax roles.
24. Attorney McGrail responded by letter dated 10/15/03, in which she opined that the
Deed for 827 Holland Avenue (which Middlemiss had obtained from the Recorder of
Young, 04 -021
Page 6
Deeds Office) showed that the property had been transferred to 827 Partnership.
a. At the time of the transactions, all liens would have followed the grantee of
the property, 827 Partnership.
b. The property was never conveyed to the Borough of Wilkinsburg by the
Middlemisses.
c. McGrail had not been asked to file a Praecipe to Satisfy Judgments with
regard to the property on behalf of the Borough.
d. McGrail initiated a full title search with the intent of confirming the status of
any judgments or liens involving the Middlemiss' or the property at 827
Holland Avenue.
e. McGrail affirmed that the transaction regarding 827 Partnership and 827
Holland Avenue did not involve the Borough of Wilkinsburg.
25. By way of letter dated 10/27/03, Heather M. Johnson, Legal Assistant for Portnoff
Law Associates, LTD, provided a copy of the Allegheny County Tax Assessment
Office records for the property at 827 Holland Avenue, that showed that the
Middlemiss' were no longer the owner of record on the property.
26. Young eventually submitted a document on the letterhead of W.A. Young Company,
575 Ardmore Boulevard, Pittsburgh, PA 15221 to Alan and Patricia Middlemiss
which provided as follows:
This is a disclosure letter informing you that I am the mayor of Wilkinsburg and that
I am not involved in this transaction in any official capacity. When the deed is
signed and recorded this will relieve you of any past Borough, School or County
Taxes."
27. From at least early 2003, Young was attempting to sell 827 Holland Avenue to
Allegheny County Rentals.
a. Young, in his capacity as a real estate consultant, has been assisting
Allegheny County Rentals locate properties since November 2002.
28. Allegheny County Rentals is involved in the business of scattered site single family
property development.
a. Cathleen Feder -Perr is the owner of the business.
b. Jonathan Perr is responsible for the day to day operation and all
administrative matters for Allegheny County Rentals.
29. Between 1/10/03 and 2/06/04, Jonathan Perr and /or Allegheny County Rentals paid
Young $60,846 in hand money for various properties Young was helping the
company purchase.
a. Most of the payments were not designated for specific properties.
1. Young would indicate to Perr that he needed hand money to make
offers on property.
b. The hand money paid by Allegheny County Rentals to Young was for
Young's assistance in obtaining /purchasing property in Wilkinsburg Borough
Young, 04 -021
Page 7
and other areas.
c. There were no signed contracts or Agreements between Young and
Allegheny County Rentals.
30. Checks issued by Allegheny County Rentals to Young /NEMO Investments were
deposited into Young's NEMO Investments Account held at Parkvale Bank.
a. None of the checks were deposited into an escrow account with Prudential
Realty Company.
b. The NEMO account was used by Young to issue payments to himself and
various living expenses.
31. On March 1, 2003, a General Warranty Deed was recorded between 827
Partnership and Allegheny County Rentals, LLC for 827 Holland Avenue.
a. Young, as a partner for 827 Partnership, signed the Deed, and authorized
the transfer for the consideration of $1.00.
b. Cathleen Perr signed the Deed on behalf of Allegheny County Rentals.
32. The Allegheny Count - Realty Transfer Tax Stamp reflected a total consideration of
$4,000.00.
a. The assessed value of the property was $21,800.00.
b. The fair market value of the property was $23,108.00.
33. During the period from January 10, 2003, to March 2003 when he was locating
property for Allegheny County Rentals which resulted in the sale of 827 Holland
Avenue, Young received payments totaling $7,750.
a. There is no documentation specifically indicating that these payments were
related to the 827 Holland Avenue property.
b. Although the county transfer stamp reflects a total consideration paid of
$4,000; there is no evidence that such was paid to Young.
The following findings relate to Young's use of a borough cellular telephone for
personal use.
34. Wilkinsburg Borough maintains cellular telephone service with Nextel.
a. Young was one of the officials designated to receive a cellular telephone.
35. Borough Fire Chief Owen McAfee is responsible for administration of the borough
telephone service.
36. In a memo dated 11/09/01, Finance Director DaShana Jacobs issued a memo to all
department heads, outlining the procedure to be followed for the cellular telephone
bills, as follows:
a. Review the bills with your staff, noting all personal phone calls. Please
review directory assistance calls with your staff in an effort to reduce these
charges where possible.
Young, 04 -021
Page 8
b. Photocopy the bill for each staff member that has had personal phone calls.
c. Have staff members initial their personal calls and collect payments.
d. Bring your department copies (in 2 above) to the Finance Office, Room 303,
to make reimbursement to the Borough and have your departments phone
expense property credited.
e. Initial and return the attached copy to the Finance Director.
37. Wilkinsburg Borough paid a basic plan rate for each Nextel cellular telephone.
a. All of the Nextel cellular telephones are on a shared minutes plan (3500
minutes) with the exception of Young's.
38. McAfee upgraded the plan for Young's cellular telephone several times between
08/01 and 01/05 due to Young repeatedly exceeding the number of minutes allowed
by the plan.
a. McAfee attempted to obtain plans for Young which would increase the
number of cellular minutes offered in the monthly plan in an effort to
minimize extra charges incurred by Young.
b. The adjustments were made in with Young's consent, and in consultation
with the borough manager.
39. The Nextel plans implemented for Young's cellular telephone included various
coverage plans.
a. The plan was upgraded in or about May 2002 to the National Unlimited NDC
Plus Plan because of the volume and cost of Young's phone usage.
1. The plan afforded unlimited incoming and outgoing calls, with the
exception of Directory Assistance.
40. Between August 2001 and March 2005 Young incurred costs which exceeded the
plan rate by $2,250.31 for the borough Nextel cellular telephone he used.
41. Young approximated his personal use of the borough cellular telephone at $20.00
per month.
a. Based on this estimation, Young has reimbursed the borough in the amount
of $367.14, one month of his net pay from the borough.
b. Young has had possession of the cellular telephone for 43 months.
1. Based on Young's estimate of $20.00 /month, Young should have
reimbursed the borough $860.00
42. By email dated August 23, 2004, Young informed Borough Finance Director Wayne
Jones that he would forgo his monthly compensation in lieu of reimbursing the
borough for his personal use of the Nextel cellular telephone.
a. Jones withheld Young's payment for the month of September 2004 in the
amount of $367.84.
b. Jones made a handwritten notation of the amount of the salary withheld on
Young, 04 -021
Page 9
the email.
c. Young's gross monthly stipend is $416.67. The net amount of $367.84 was
given back to the borough and deposited into the general fund.
43. Council was aware of the cost to the borough for Young's telephone usage.
a. Council reviews bills in the finance committee meetings.
b. Although some questions were raised regarding the excessive charges, no
action was taken to limit Young's cellular telephone use.
44. Young has made a total of $367.84 in reimbursement to the borough for personal
use of the borough cellular telephone.
45. Based on Young's estimation of $20.00 /month cellular telephone use, Young owes
the borough $492.16 for his use of the borough cellular telephone.
46. Young believed that he had reimbursed the borough for at least an additional month
and that the amount remaining was de minimis.
The following findings relate to Young's use of borough computers, employees and
equipment for his personal use.
47. Wilbert Young has utilized borough equipment, supplies and employees in
furtherance of his private business interests.
a. Young's use of borough equipment, facilities and personnel to conduct his
personal real estate and development business was not approved or
authorized by council.
48. Young would use the borough offices to transact his private real estate
consulting /sales business.
49. Wilkinsburg Borough does not have a written policy that is enforced borough wide
relating to the use of borough equipment for non - borough related purposes.
50. Since at least March 2002 Young has been in possession of a laptop computer
which had been in possession of former Police Chief Mark Springer.
51. The laptop was purchased by the borough in or about June 15, 2001, from
CompUSA.
a. The computer is a Compaq Presario laptop, Model# 18XL280.
b. The price of the computer was 1,058.88.
52. Young utilized the computer for over two years until approximately mid -2004 when a
substance was spilled on the keyboard damaging the unit.
53. Young was also assigned a desktop computer, property of the borough, for official
borough use.
a. The borough experienced problems with hard drive of this unit and other
similar units.
Young, 04 -021
Page 10
b. The desktop was replaced by Young with the laptop.
54. In or around mid -2004 Young was provided with a Gateway desk -top computer to
use in place of the laptop computer that had been damaged.
55. Both the laptop and desktop were utilized by Young to further his private business
interests.
56. Michelle Kenney has been employed by the Borough of Wilkinsburg in the position
of Police Department clerical /secretary employee for five years.
57. From approximately October 2002 Young has occasionally utilized Kenney to type
letters and correspondence, and to correct and review drafts letters of Young had
written related to his private business interests.
a. The information was most often saved to floppy disks which Young and
Kenney transferred between them.
1. The work was prepared on borough computers assigned to Young
and Kenney.
b. Kenney performed the work for Young during her regular work hours for the
borough.
c. Kenney also performed the work for lunch on her lunch hour and breaks.
d. The typing generally consisted of one page letters.
58. When preparing correspondence of a personal nature for Young, Kenney would use
letterhead of the borough mayor's office.
a. The municipal building address and telephone numbers were printed on the
bottom of the page.
b. The letters contained Young's name and the title of mayor.
59. Kenney typed documents for Young that were provided to her by Young in
handwritten form or on a disk.
a. Kenney did not document when she performed work for Young.
60. Files contained on floppy diskettes maintained by Michelle Kenney confirm
Kenney's use of a borough computer to prepare documents related to Young's
outside business interests.
a. The documents were prepared by Kenney at Young's direction.
61. Files obtained from the hard drives of computers used by Young contain documents
that relate to property Young had a personal business interest in, or that relate to
real estate /development clients.
62. Files obtained from the desktop computer used by Police Department
clerical /secretarial employee, Michelle Kenney, confirm the use of such computer for
Young's personal business interests.
a. The files contained documents prepared and /or edited by Kenney for Young.
Young, 04 -021
Page 11
63. Young's computer contained a Folder titled `Excel Spreadsheets', which
contained development spreadsheets relating to real estate.
a. The spreadsheets generally reflected information on revenue, expenses,
and per unit cost.
b. A number of the spreadsheets were titled `proforma' or `Sources'.
c. Forty -nine (49) of the sixty -three (63) files related to businesses and
development cost overviews for real estate ventures in which Young had
a private interest.
64. Kenney prepared various correspondences at Young's direction that were related to
Allegheny County Rentals /Jonathan Perr.
a. Kenney was provided with floppy disks containing correspondence and
documents that Young instructed her to review and make corrections as
necessary.
65. The floppy disks in Michelle Kenney's possession included various documents
that relate to Young's private real estate /development businesses with Allegheny
County Rentals and other Young real estate ventures.
66. Young also utilized the computers assigned to him to prepare and store documents
related to his business relationship with Allegheny County Rentals /Jonathan Perr.
67. During the period from late 1992 through early 2004, Young did not maintain a
private office to maintain his business relationship with Allegheny Rentals.
a. Young occasionally utilized his public office, equipment and employees for
this private business interests.
68. Young used the desktop computer in his office to access the Allegheny County Real
Estate Web Site in relation to properties that he was attempting to secure for clients
of his private business interests.
a. 456 files on the hard drive were contained in a folder titled "Web Pages"
b. Thirty -six files related to property that Young had sold or had accepted hand
money.
c. Thirty -nine files were property images, and 21 files were search related.
d. All but 14 files were related to real estate.
69. Young utilized the borough computer to prepare documents related to Deliverance
Inc., an entity he was involved with in private real estate ventures.
a. Deliverance Incorporated is a non - profit charitable corporation whose
purpose is to purchase and rehabilitate property for rental and resale
purposes.
1. Mark Lewis is the President and Chief Executive Officer of the
company.
70. Young sold property to, accepted hand money from, and was working with
Deliverance Incorporated on various projects.
Young, 04 -021
Page 12
a. Young, acting as Housing Development Corporation, sold 1235 Morrow
Street, Wilkinsburg to Deliverance Inc. for 16,500.
1. Young obtained the Morrow Street property from David Bradbury.
b. Young received hand money from Deliverance Inc. to secure property at 417
Peebles; 812 Coal Street; and 1215 Franklin Avenue.
1. Young received $2,500 for 417 Peebles and $1,000 for 812 Coal
Street.
2. Young obtained these properties from David Bradbury. (See Finding
102)
3. Young retained the funds even though no agreements on the property
were reached.
71. Young's computers contained documents Young utilized in his private real estate
transactions involving Deliverance Inc.
72. In the spring of 2002, Young was involved in a real estate transaction with a David
Bradbury.
a. Bradbury was delinquent in paying the property taxes on a number of
properties he owned in the borough.
b. Bradbury had been trying to sell or give the properties away which were in
poor condition.
c. Young was interested in obtaining some of Bradbury's property:
417 Peebles Street 1123 South Avenue
1235 Morrow Street 812 Coal Street
1307 Labelle Street
73. On May 1, 2002, Young and Bradbury entered into an Agreement to transfer the
properties to Young.
a. Bradbury agreed to transfer the properties to Young with the understanding
that he would not pay any of the costs associated with the transaction,
including taxes.
b. Young obtained the properties in the business name Housing Development
Partnership, an entity Young created for the transfer of property.
e. Young did not pay Bradbury for the properties.
74. The Agreement was for five properties, including: 417 Peebles Street, 1235
Morrow Street, 1307 LaBelle Street and adjacent lot to the left, 1123 South Avenue,
and 812 Coal Street.
a. Young agreed to accept ownership of the properties with the knowledge that
there were, or may have been, numerous tax liens, judgments, municipal
service liens, code violation, and /or utility liens filed against the properties.
b. Young agreed to accept the properties and take title subject to any and all
liens, judgments, or violations against them.
Young, 04 -021
Page 13
75. Young utilized Benita Todd, Police Department Office Manager in 2002, to notarize
documents for Young on borough time.
76. At the time that Bradbury transferred the properties to Young, the total market value
was $67,600.00.
417 Peebles Street -
1235 Morrow Street -
1307 La Belle Avenue -
1123 South Avenue -
812 Coal Street -
c. Young returned the money.
$11,400.00
$21,400.00
$30,400.00
$ 2,300.00
$2,100.00
a. The Labelle Avenue property was eventually sold by Young to Deliverance
Inc.
b. Young eventually sold 1235 Morrow Street to Deliverance Inc. for $16,500.
77. Young maintained files on his borough computers related to the acquisition of the
five properties from David Bradbury.
78. Young used borough cellular telephones, borough landlines and computers in
furtherance of a private business relationship with R.E. Crawford Construction
Company.
79. Young was paid $1000.00 per month as a consultant for R. E. Crawford
Construction Company from 10/03 through 12/03.
a. Young was to receive commissions on leads on potential development
projects that he provided to R. E. Crawford Construction.
b. Young was also working on leads for R. E. Crawford in Atlanta, Georgia.
c. Contact telephone numbers that Young provided to R.E. Crawford
Construction were the borough cellular telephone and his borough office
telephone number.
80. Young maintained files on his borough computers related to his association with R.
E. Crawford Construction Company.
81. In or about June 2001 Young was providing real estate services to Strength Inc.
a. Strength Incorporated is a non - profit corporation located in the Borough of
Wilkinsburg that provides treatment facilities and recovery housing.
b. Strength Inc. owns property on South Avenue, Wilkinsburg.
82. Young was utilized by Strength Inc. for information regarding other property on
South Avenue that Strength was interested in acquiring.
a. Young was given $1,000.00 in hand money toward the acquisition of the
property.
b. Young was asked to return the hand money when no action was taken to
acquire the property on behalf of Strength Inc.
Young, 04 -021
Page 14
83. Two letters from Mayor Young dated 6/16/01, related to Strength's interest in
purchasing property on South Avenue, were contained on a floppy diskettes
maintained by Kenney.
84. Young maintained other files on his borough computers related to various other
property sales, and or developments in which Young had a financial interest.
The following findings relate to Young's failure to disclose sources of income on
Statements of Financial Interests.
85. In his capacity as Mayor, Young has filed Statements of Financial Interests (SFIs)
with the Borough of Wilkinsburg as follows:
CALENDAR YEAR
2002
2003
2003
2004
FILING DATE
01/08/04
01/08/04
01/26/04
03/06/05
03/24/05
86. Young disclosed the following information on Statements of Financial Interests on
file with the Borough:
a. Calendar Year 2002:
Block 6 - Occupation: Real Estate Sales /Consulting
Block 10 - Sources of Income: PRC Commercial, 3700 Water Street,
Pittsburgh; Consultant work, 575 Ardmore Boulevard, Pittsburgh Pa 15221.
Block 13 - Office, Directorship or Employment in any Business: Landmark
Development; National Conference of Black Mayors; Federal Home Loan
Bank of Pittsburgh Advisory Council.
Block 14 — Financial Interest in any Legal Entity in Business fro Profit: None
b. Calendar Year 2003:
Block 6 - Occupation: Real Estate Sales /Consulting
Block 10 - Sources of Income: PRC Commercial, 3700 Water Street,
Pittsburgh; Consultant work, 575 Ardmore Boulevard, Pittsburgh Pa 15221.
Block 13 - Office, Directorship or Employment in any Business: Landmark
Development; National Conference of Black Mayors; Federal Home Loan
Bank of Pittsburgh Advisory Council.
Block 14 — Financial Interest in any Legal Entity in Business fro Profit: None
c. Calendar Year 2004 (filed 03/06/05):
Block 6 - Occupation: Real Estate Sales Consulting & Development
Block 10 - Sources of Income: PRC Commercial, 3700 S. Water St.,
Young, 04 -021
Page 15
Wilkinsburg Borough; Consulting Fees, 575 Ardmore Blvd, Wilkinsburg
Borough.
Block 13 - Office, Directorship or Employment in any Business: NCBM —
director
Block 14 - Financial Interest in Any Legal Entity in Business for Profit: Nemo
Investment, 2932 Webster Ave. - CEO, 100% Owner
d. Calendar Year 2004 (filed 03/24/05):
2002 SFI:
Block 6 - Occupation: Real Estate Development & Consulting
Block 9 - Creditors: None — No lien or debt reduced to executable judgment
to any one entity and no credit owed in excess of $6,500.00.
Block 10 - Sources of Income: PRC Commercial, 3700 S. Water St.,
Wilkinsburg Borough, Consulting Fees Private Practice: 575 Ardmore Blvd.
Block 13 - Office, Directorship or employment in any Business: NCBM —
director.
Block 14 - Financial Interest in any Legal Entity in Business for Profit: Nemo
Investments, 2932 Webster Ave, 15219, or 575 Ardmore Blvd, 15221
e. Other than as noted, all other financial interest categories for each year are
marked none.
87. Young failed to disclose income from Nemo Investments on his Statement of
Financial Interest filed for the 2002 calendar year.
a. Payments were received by Young payable to Nemo Investments totaling
$20,000 in 2002 for real estate services.
88. Young failed to disclose sources of income in excess of $1,300 on his SFI filed for
the 2003 calendar year.
a. R.E. Crawford
b. Allegheny County Rentals
c. Nemo Investments
d. PRC Commercial
89. Young believed that he had complied with the filing requirements by reporting
"consultant work" as a source of income.
90. Young failed to disclose on Block 13 of Statements of Financial Interests filed for
the 2002 and 2003 calendar year the following entities:
827 Partnership
Housing Development Partnership
Nemo Investments
2003 SFI: Housing Development Partnership
Nemo Investments
Young, 04 -021
Page 16
III. DISCUSSION:
At all times relevant to this matter, the Respondent, Wilbert Young (Young), has
been a 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 Young, as Mayor of the City of Wilkinsburg, Allegheny
County, violated Sections 1103(a) and 1105(b)(5) and (8) of the Ethics Act when he
obtained a cellular telephone at borough expense without council approval and utilized the
cellular telephone supplied by the borough to make personal telephone calls; when he
negotiated as Mayor to obtain a property from borough residents to satisfy a delinquent
property tax bill and subsequently converted the property to 827 Partnership, a business
with which he is associated; when he used borough equipment, facilities and personnel in
support of his private businesses; and when he failed to disclose on Statements of
Financial Interests (SFIs) filed for the 2002 and 2003 calendar years, sources of income,
and offices, directorships or employment in business entities.
Pursuant to Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, a public official /public employee is
prohibited from engaging in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest.
The term "conflict of interest" is defined under Act 93 of 1998 as follows:
Section 1102. Definitions
"Conflict" or "conflict of interest." Use by a public
official or public employee of the authority of his office or
employment or any confidential information received through
his holding public office or employment for the private
pecuniary benefit of himself, a member of his immediate family
or a business with which he or a member of his immediate
family is associated. "Conflict" or "conflict of interest" does not
include an action having a de minimis economic impact or
which affects to the same degree a class consisting of the
general public or a subclass consisting of an industry,
occupation or other group which includes the public official or
public employee, a member of his immediate family or a
business with which he or a member of his immediate family is
associated.
65 Pa.C.S. § 1102.
Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act prohibits a public official /public employee from
using the authority of public office /employment or confidential information received by
holding such a public position for the private pecuniary benefit of the public official /public
employee himself, any member of his immediate family, or a business with which he or a
member of his immediate family is associated.
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)(8) of the Ethics Act requires that any office, directorship or
employment in any business entity be listed.
Young, 04 -021
Page 17
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.
Young has served as the Wilkinsburg Borough Mayor since 1998. In a private
capacity, Young is the President and Treasurer of the W.A. Young Company, Inc. In
addition, Young is either the holder of a financial interest, an officer or a director in several
other companies: Franklin Avenue Associates, Sherman Street Associates, 827
Partnership, NEMO Investments, Inc. and Housing Development Partnership. Young has
used some of these entities, which are neither incorporated nor registered with the
Pennsylvania Department of State, for the purpose of acquiring properties in Wilkinsburg.
Young holds an active real estate license in Pennsylvania.
Young also has an affiliation with Prudential Realty Company, a property
management and limited housing sales business, wherein Young acts as an independent
contractor and receives compensation on a commission basis. Young does not utilize the
offices of Prudential Realty Company. Young provided his Borough cellular number and
Borough office telephone number as a contact point to the owner of Prudential Realty
Company.
The allegations against Young involve the following groups of factual scenarios:
property obtained by Young that was the subject of delinquent property tax; the acquisition
of a cellular phone by Young at the Borough's expense; the use by Young of a Borough's
cellular telephone for business purposes; the use by Young of the Borough computers,
employees and equipment for business purposes; and the failure by Young to disclose
sources of income and business interests on his SFIs for the 2002 and 2003 calendar
years.
Regarding the first factual scenario as to the realty that was subject to delinquent
property tax, Alan and Patricia Middlemiss owned the property located at 827 Holland
Avenue in Wilkinsburg. Subsequently, the Middlemisses entered into a contract for the
sale of the realty and became aware that the buyer was not paying the property taxes. The
buyer then stopped making the installment payments and the Middlemisses regained
possession of the property.
Since the Middlemisses were not interested in keeping the property even if the
taxes could be forgiven, they contacted Young as Mayor who informed them that there was
an individual working for the Borough who might be interested in the property and that if
they made the transfer, they would not be responsible for any unpaid taxes or any other
expenses related to the property. Young prepared the paperwork for the transfer,
including a deed from the Middlemisses to a buyer that was identified as the 827
Partnership. The 827 Partnership, a paper company created by Young to secure the
transfer of the property, has a tax address, which is Young's home address.
Although the deed for the property reflected that the Middlemisses received
consideration of $4,000, the Middlemisses in fact received no payment from Young. After
the transaction was completed, the Middlemisses sent an email to Young for a confirmation
that the judgment on the property had been satisfied. Young responded that he would
send a settlement statement to them. However, when the Middlemisses sought to
refinance the mortgage on their house in April of 2003, they learned that they were still
listed on the property tax rolls for the Holland Avenue property. The Middlemisses then
contacted Young, who advised that he would resolve the matter and call them back. The
Middlemisses made numerous subsequent contacts with Young to have their names
removed from the property.
In September 2003, Patricia Middlemiss contacted the Borough Solicitor and
recounted the history of the property transfer with Young. The Solicitor responded that the
Young, 04 -021
Page 18
property was not conveyed to the Borough of Wilkinsburg, but to the 827 Partnership.
Subsequently, the Allegheny County Tax Assessment Office provided the Middlemisses
with a letter that showed they were no longer owners of record of the property.
Young attempted to sell the Holland Avenue property to Allegheny County Rentals.
Young acted in the capacity of a real estate consultant to assist Allegheny County Rentals
in locating properties. Allegheny County Rentals is involved in the business of scattered
site single family property development. Allegheny County Rentals paid Young $60,846
for a group of properties that Young was helping the company purchase. The money that
Young received was not designated for specific properties but for his assistance in
obtaining or purchasing property in the Borough or other areas for Allegheny County
Rentals. In March 2003, Young deeded the Holland Avenue property to Allegheny
County Rentals for a stated consideration of $1.00. A transfer tax stamp reflected the
actual consideration of $4,000.00 for the property.
The next factual scenario concerns the acquisition and use of a Borough cellular
telephone by Young. The Borough maintained a cellular telephone service with a shared
plan for designated individuals with the exception of Young, who had an individual cellular
plan as Mayor. The Borough Finance Director had a policy that personal phone calls on
the Borough's cellular phones should be identified and the individuals who made such
calls should pay for those charges.
As to Young, his usage continued to exceed the number of allowable minutes,
thereby requiring the Borough Administrator to obtain cellular plans for Young with an
increased number of minutes. Finally, the plan for Young had to be increased to a national
unlimited plan due to the volume and cost of Young's phone usage. The added cost that
Young incurred due to excessive usage between August 2001 and March 2005 totaled
$2,250.31.
Young estimated that his personal use of the Borough's cellular telephone was $20
per month and reimbursed the Borough $367.14. Even if one were to assume the
accuracy of Young's estimate, he should have reimbursed $860 to the Borough. Although
Council was aware of Young's telephone usage, no action was taken to limit Young's
cellular telephone use. Using Young's estimate as a basis and crediting the payment of
$367.84, Young would still owe the Borough at least $492.16 for the personal use of the
Borough cellular telephone.
The next factual scenario relates to Young's use of Borough computers, employees
and equipment for personal use. Young, as Borough Mayor, has utilized Borough
equipment, supplies and employees in furtherance of his private business interests. In
particular, he used the Borough offices to transact his private real estate consulting /sales
business. Since March 2002, Young had been in the possession of a Borough lap top
computer that he used for two years for his private business dealings until he spilled liquid
on the keyboard and damaged the unit. Young then received a Borough desk top
computer and utilized that computer for his private business interests.
From October 2002, Young utilized Michelle Kenney, a Police Department
employee to type drafts of letters and correspondence for his private business interests.
Such work was performed by Kenney during regular work hours as well as on lunch hours
and breaks. Young used the stationary with the letterhead of the Borough Mayor's office in
conducting his personal business. Files obtained from the hard drive of the Borough
computers used by Young reflect matters relating to his private business interests or real
estate /development clients. Such files confirm the use by Young of Borough equipment for
private business purposes. The computer also contained files that relate to Young's
Allegheny County Rentals business connection. During the period of 1992 through 2004,
Young did not have any private office in maintaining his business relationship with
Allegheny County Rentals. Instead, Young utilized his Borough office, equipment and
Young, 04 -021
Page 19
employees for such private business interests.
Young also used the Borough computer for files as to properties that he was
attempting to secure clients for his private business interests. In addition, Young utilized
the Borough computer for documents related to Deliverance, Inc., an entity with which he
was involved in private real estate ventures.
In another instance, Young was involved in a real estate transaction with David
Bradbury, who was delinquent in paying his property taxes in the Borough. Since Young
was interested in obtaining some of Bradbury's properties, he and Bradbury entered into
an agreement to transfer certain properties to Young. Bradbury agreed to transfer the
properties to Young with the proviso that he (Bradbury) would not have to pay any costs
associated with the transfers or taxes. The transfer involved five properties by Bradbury.
See, Fact Finding 72(c). Young utilized the Police Department Office Manager to notarize
the documents for the transfer of the five properties that had a total market value of
$67,600. The files relating to the David Bradbury transactions were also on the Borough
computers.
In another matter, Young used the Borough cellular telephones, Borough line
phones and computers in furtherance of a private business relationship with R.E. Crawford
Construction Company, from which Young received a $1,000 payment per month as a
consultant from October through December of 2003. Lastly, Young maintained other files
on the Borough computers relating to property sales and real estate developments in
which Young had financial interests.
The last factual scenario involves Young's failure to disclose sources of income and
offices, directorships or employment in business entities on his SFIs. Young filed SFIs as
Borough Mayor for the calendar years 2002 through 2004. The details of Young's
disclosures on his SFI filings for the calendar years 2002 through 2004 are delineated in
Fact Finding 86.
For the 2002 calendar year, Young failed to disclose income from NEMO
Investments from which he received payments of approximately $20,000 for real estate
services. For the 2003 calendar year, Young failed to disclose sources of income in
excess of $1,300 from R.E. Crawford, Allegheny County Rentals, NEMO Investments, and
PRC Commercial. Finally, Young failed to disclose his office, directorship or employment
in the following businesses: in 2002, 827 Partnership, Housing Development Partnership
and NEMO Investments; and in 2003, Housing Development Partnership and NEMO
Investments.
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:
"3. The Investigative Division will recommend the following in relation to the
above allegations:
a. That an unintentional violation of Section 1103(a) of the Public
Official and Employee Ethics Law, 65 Pa.C.S. §1103(a) occurred
when Young
utilized a borough cellular telephone to make personal telephone
calls;
b. That no violation of Section 1105(a) [sic] of the Public Official and
Employee Ethics Law, 65 Pa.C.S. §1105(a) [sic] occurred relating to
Young's acquisition of a borough cellular telephone as council
Young, 04 -021
Page 20
approved the acquisition of such equipment for use by borough
officials.
c. That no violations of Section 1103(a) [sic] of the Public Official and
Employee Ethics Law, 65 Pa.C.S. §1103(a) occurred when Young
obtained property from a borough resident to satisfy a delinquent
property tax bill and subsequently converted the property to 827
Partnership, a business with which he is associated based on an
insufficiency of evidence that Young obtained any private pecuniary
benefit.
d. That a violation of Section 1103(a) of the Public Official and
Employee Ethics Law, 65 Pa.C.S. §1103(a) occurred when Young
used borough equipment, facilities and personnel in support of his
private business activities;
e. That an unintentional violation of Section 1105(b)(5)(8) of the Public
Official and Employee Ethics Law, 65 Pa.C.S. §1105(b)(5)(8)
occurred in relation to Young's failure to disclose sources of income
and offices, directorships or employment in businesses, on
Statements of Financial Interests filed for the 2002 and 2003 calendar
years.
4. Young agrees to make payment in the amount of $4,000 in settlement of this matter
payable to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and forwarded to the Pennsylvania
State Ethics Commission within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the final
adjudication in this matter. Said amount to be completed over a two year period
with payments being made in equal amounts of $166.66 every month for twgnty-
three months and one final payment of $166.82 to be paid on or before the 15 day
of each month consecutively."
Consent Agreement, 1[3, ¶4.
Applying Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act to the allegation concerning the transfer
of realty that was subject to delinquent property tax, there were uses of authority of office
on the part of Young. The Middlemisses, the owners of the property, approached Young
as Mayor for assistance with their property. Young saw the situation as an opportunity for
financial gain as to his private real estate business endeavors. But for the fact that Young
was Mayor, he could not have misled the Middlemisses into believing that he could
transfer the property to a Borough employee, or misstated the circumstances surrounding
the consideration for the transfer. Young was also evasive or non - responsive when the
Middlemisses learned that their names had not been removed as to the listing of that
property. Young initially had the property transferred to the 827 Partnership, one of his
paper companies, without informing the Middlemisses. Ultimately, the property was
transferred by Young to the Allegheny County Rentals, a business with which Young had a
business relationship.
Although the Fact Findings of record reflect uses of authority of office on the part of
Young, there is no showing that such uses of authority of office resulted in a private
pecuniary benefit to him. The relationship that Young had with the Allegheny County
Rentals involved Young assisting that business in obtaining various properties for
purchase. However, there does not appear to be any correlation between the payments
that he received and houses that he was instrumental in obtaining for Allegheny County
Rentals. Rather, Young received a set amount of money for performing his consulting
services to Allegheny County Rentals. Accordingly, there is no showing that a private
pecuniary benefit resulted as to the use of the authority of office by Young. Without that
resultant private pecuniary benefit, there can be no violation of Section 1103(a) of the
Young, 04 -021
Page 21
Ethics Act. See, Wagner, Order 1028. Hence, Young did not violate Section 1103(a) of
the Ethics Act when he obtained from a Borough resident property that was subject to
delinquent property taxes and transferred that property to 827 Partnership, a business with
which he was associated, based upon an insufficiency of evidence that Young obtained a
private pecuniary benefit.
Turning to the issues of the acquisition and use of the Borough cellular phone for
private business purposes, the Fact Findings reflect that Young was not involved in the
purchase of the Borough cellular telephone that he used. It appears that the purchase of
the cellular telephone and accompanying service was effectuated by the Borough
administrator. The Borough's cell phone was then provided to Young for official use in his
capacity as Mayor. There was no use of authority of office on the part of Young as to the
purchase of the Borough cell phone because it was purchased by the Borough
administrator. Without a use of authority of office, there can be no violation of the Ethics
Act. See, McGuire & Marchitello v. SEC, 657 A.2d 1346 (Pa. Commw. 1995). Accordingly,
Young did not violate Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act regarding the acquisition of a
Borough cellular telephone for official use in that the acquisition of that equipment was
made by the Borough through its administrator.
As to the use of the Borough's cell phone, since the Borough cell phone was
Borough property for official use, the actions of Young in using the cell phone for his
private business dealings were uses of authority of office. See, Juliante, Order 809. By
virtue of being the Borough Mayor, Young was in a position to use the Borough cell phone
for his private business activities. The uses of authority of office on the part of Young
resulted in pecuniary benefits to him. By having the Borough pay the bills for his private
business cell phone calls, he did not have any out -of- pocket expenses. Further, the
pecuniary benefit that Young received was a private pecuniary benefit in that there is no
provision in the Borough Code that allows a public official to use municipal paid equipment
for private business purposes. In addition, it was Borough policy that individuals who used
Borough cell phones to make personal calls had to reimburse the Borough for the cost of
such calls. Accordingly, Young unintentionally violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act
when he made personal telephone calls on a Borough cellular telephone assigned to him
for official Borough business. See, Bryant, Order 1367.
Regarding the issue of the use of Borough equipment facilities and personnel, the
Fact Findings are replete with instances where Young used a Police Department employee
to do typing for him as to his private business dealings. In addition, Young used the
Borough offices as a contact point where he could conduct his private business dealings.
Further, Young, in conducting his private business, utilized both a lap top and a desk top
computer of the Borough for private business purposes. These activities are established
by the Police Department employee, the Borough stationary with the Borough Mayor office
letterhead, and the computer files that contain documents or spreadsheets relating to
Young's private business activities.
The decisions by this Commission are legion that public officials /public employees
may not use government offices, equipment, personnel, facilities or supplies for campaign,
re- election or business activities. Governmental offices, staff, supplies and equipment are
to be used for governmental purposes. See, Rockefeller, Order 1104. See also, Friend,
Order 800; Fiorello, Order 1363. Accordingly, Young violated Section 1103(a) of the
Ethics Act when he used Borough equipment, facilities and personnel in support of his
private business dealings.
As to the SFI allegations concerning Young's filings for the calendar years 2002 and
2003, the Findings reflect that Young failed to list NEMO Investments as a source of
income on his 2002 calendar year SFI and R.E. Crawford, Allegheny County Rentals,
NEMO Investments and PRC Commercial as sources of income on his 2003 calendar year
SFI.
Young, 04 -021
Page 22
In addition, Young failed to list as an office, directorship or employment in a
business entity for his 2002 SFI: 827 Partnership, Housing Development Partnership and
NEMO Investments. For the 2003 calendar year SFI, he failed to list Housing
Development Partnership and NEMO Investments under office, directorship or employment
in any business entity.
Young unintentionally violated Section 1105(b)(5) and (8) of the Ethics Act when he
failed to list the above entities as sources of income and his office, directorship or
employment in those business entities for the 2002 and 2003 calendar year SFIs. See,
Hoover, Order 1348. If Young has not already done so, he is directed within thirty (30)
days of the date of mailing of this Order to file amended SFIs with the Borough of
Wilkinsburg with copies forwarded to this Commission for compliance verification
purposes, correcting the above deficiencies. Failure to comply will result in the institution
of an Order enforcement action.
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, Young is directed to make
payment in the amount of $4,000 in settlement of this matter payable to the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania and forwarded to the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission. Said
amount to be completed over a two year period with payments being made in equal
amounts of $166.66 every month for twenty -three months and one final payment of
$166.82 to be paid on or before the 15 day of each month consecutively. 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.
In reviewing this case, it is clear to us that Young used public office for personal
financial gain. As the Preamble to the Ethics Act states in part, public office is a public
trust. Young violated that public trust when he used his position as Mayor to carry on his
private business activities. In his future conduct as Mayor, Young is reminded that the
Ethics Act prohibits the use of public office for personal financial gain. Young must ensure
that he follows both the letter and spirit of the Ethics Act in his future conduct.
IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
1. Wilbert Young, as Mayor of the City of Wilkinsburg, Allegheny County, is a public
official subject to the provisions of Act 9 of 1989 as codified by Act 93 of 1998.
2. Young unintentionally violated Section 1103(a) when he utilized a borough cellular
telephone to make personal telephone calls.
3. Young did not violate Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he obtained from a
Borough resident property that was subject to delinquent property taxes and
transferred that property to 827 Partnership, a business with which he was
associated, based upon an insufficiency of evidence that Young obtained a private
pecuniary benefit.
4. Young did not violate Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act regarding the acquisition of
a Borough cellular telephone for official use in that the acquisition of that equipment
was made by the Borough through its administrator.
5. Young violated Section 1103(a) when he used borough equipment, facilities and
personnel in support of his private business activities.
6. Young unintentionally violated Section 1105(b)(5) and (8) when he failed to
disclose sources of income and offices, directorships or employment in businesses,
Young, 04 -021
Page 23
on Statements of Financial Interests filed for the 2002 and 2003 calendar years.
In Re: Wilbert Young
ORDER NO. 1378
File Docket: 04 -021
Date Decided: 9/12/05
Date Mailed: 9/21/05
1 Wilbert Young (Young), as Mayor of the City of Wilkinsburg, Allegheny County,
unintentionally violated Section 1103(a) when he utilized a borough cellular
telephone to make personal telephone calls.
2. Young did not violate Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he obtained from a
Borough resident property that was subject to delinquent property taxes and
transferred that property to 827 Partnership, a business with which he was
associated, based upon an insufficiency of evidence that Young obtained a private
pecuniary benefit.
3. Young did not violate Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act regarding the acquisition of
a Borough cellular telephone for official use in that the acquisition of that equipment
was made by the Borough through its administrator.
4. Young violated Section 1103(a) when he used borough equipment, facilities and
personnel in support of his private business activities.
5. Young unintentionally violated Section 1105(b)(5) and (8) when he failed to
disclose sources of income and offices, directorships or employment in businesses,
on Statements of Financial Interests filed for the 2002 and 2003 calendar years.
6. Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Young is directed to make payment in
the amount of $4,000 in settlement of this matter payable to the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania and forwarded to the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission. Said
amount to be completed over a two year period with payments being made in equal
amounts of $166.66 every month for twenty -three months and one final payment of
$166.82 to be paid on or before the 15 day of each month consecutively:
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