HomeMy WebLinkAbout1385 StacknickIn Re: Susan Stacknick
File Docket:
X -ref:
Date Decided:
Date Mailed:
Before: Louis W. Fryman, Chair
John J. Bolger, Vice Chair
Donald M. McCurdy
Paul M. Henry
Raquel K. Bergen
Nicholas A. Colafella
04 -051
Order No. 1385
12/12/05
12/23/05
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 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Effective December 15, 1998, Act 9 of 1989 was repealed and replaced by Chapter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.
Stacknick, 04 -051
Page 2
I. ALLEGATION:
That Susan Stacknick, a public official /public employee, in her capacity as
Secretary /Treasurer of Dalton Borough, Lackawanna County, violated Sections 1103(a),
and 1104(a) provisions of the State Ethics Act (Act 93 of 1998), 65 Pa.C.S. § §1103(a), and
1104(a) when she used the authority of her public position for the private pecuniary gain of
herself and /or a member of her immediate family by utilizing telephones of the Borough to
make long distance telephone calls of a personal nature and when she subsequently
submitted bills for these calls to the Borough Council for approval and ultimately issued
checks as payment for these calls; when she submitted time and was compensated for
lunch hours which was not approved under Borough policy, when she subsequently
submitted and was paid for vacation time in excess of the amount of leave available to her;
when she submitted timesheets for council approval for paid lunch hours for her husband
not approved under Borough policy; and when she failed to file Statements of Financial
Interests for the 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002 calendar years.
II. FINDINGS:
1. Susan Stacknick served as the Dalton Borough Secretary/Treasurerfrom 1991 until
December 9, 2004.
a. Donald "Doc" Stacknick is Susan Stacknick's husband and was employed as
the borough's roadmaster from at least 2000 through 2004.
2. Susan Stacknick's normal work schedule consisted of either thirty or thirty -five
hours per week worked Monday through Friday.
a. Stacknick increased to thirty -five hours per week in 2004.
b. Stacknick was required to use the borough time clock to clock in and out
documenting her start and ending times each day.
c. Stacknick was responsible for maintaining time records in her official
capacity as secretary /treasurer.
3. Stacknick's general job duties performed included:
a. Serve as a liaison between the community and council.
b. Prepare meeting minutes.
c. Prepare bills for payment.
d. Compile timecards and payroll.
e. Apply for grants.
f. Assemble records for annual audits.
g. Serve as the borough's custodian of records.
4. Dalton Borough has a personnel manual for employees which dealt with issues
including time off from work, outside employment, work hours, and overtime.
Relevant portions include the following provisions:
Stacknick, 04 -051
Page 3
a. Time Off From Work
Vacation: 1 -10 years 10 days per year
10 years: 15 days per year
Sick: 5 days per year; with no pay for unused sick days
b. Outside Employment
"Employees shall not engage in outside employment which might in any way
hinder the impartial performance of their public duties, embarrass the
borough government, impair their efficiency or present a potential conflict of
interest.
Outside work shall not be performed during hours when an employee is on
duty at his /her borough position."
c. Work Hours
"Employees shall be paid based on a regular work week of 40 hours, 8 hours
per day. Each workday shall be interrupted by a lunch period of'/ hour to 1
hour which shall not be part of the paid time. Starting and quitting times and
lunch hours shall be assigned in each work area so as to provide continuous
coverage during regular work hours."
d. Overtime
"Normally approved overtime work will be compensated by granting time off
of one and one -half hours for each overtime hour worked, to be used within
the next two months. If conditions do not allow the time off to be scheduled,
overtime will be paid at the time and one -half rate. If compensatory time is
not taken within the two month period, overtime will be paid following the two
month period."
5. The Dalton Borough personnel policy was copied from another municipality
primarily for insurance liability purposes.
a. Council did not actively enforce all of the provisions or conditions contained
in the manual.
6. Stacknick, in her official capacity as Dalton Borough Secretary /Treasurer was the
custodian of borough records including the employee personnel manual, timecards
and telephone toll records.
7 In September 2003, the Dalton Borough Municipal Building suffered severe
flooding.
a. Borough records kept in the building's basement were severely damaged
and /or destroyed.
b. These records included Statement of Financial Interests forms and time
cards prior to 2003.
8. Full and part -time employees of Dalton Borough were required to record their daily
start and stop times using the borough's time clock.
a. Susan Stacknick was responsible for maintaining employee timecards and
completing payroll for council approval.
b. Timecards prior to August 2003 are not available due to flood damage.
Stacknick, 04 -051
Page 4
9. Dalton Borough employees are required to take an unpaid lunch period of one -half
hour to one hour per day.
a. This requirement is specifically detailed in the employee personnel manual.
b. Dalton Borough did not strictly follow or enforce this aspect of the personnel
manual.
10. Employees of Dalton Borough routinely did not clock out for lunch breaks thereby
receiving compensation for that period.
a. Employees who did not clock out for lunch periods included but were not
limited to Stacknick; her husband, Roadmaster Donald "Doc" Stacknick;
Zoning Officer Karen Fornaszewski and Borough Police Officers.
11. Borough council approves the total payroll as part of the routine payment of bills.
a. Council does not review individual hours claimed by each employee per pay
period.
b. Council was generally aware that employees on occasion, did not punch out
for lunch breaks.
c. Council took no action regarding employees not taking lunch breaks and
then claiming compensation.
12. Susan Stacknick did not deduct one -half hour lunch breaks from any borough
employee timecards including her husband and her time cards when determining
daily hours worked.
a. Stacknick identified total hours to be paid for by shift in her official capacity
as secretary /treasurer.
13. Both Stacknick and her husband received compensation in the form of a paid lunch
1/2 hour.
Susan Stacknick processed these payments in her official capacity as
borough secretary /treasurer.
Borough Council approved these payments but did not review the time
cards.
14. Stacknick did not follow borough guidelines with respect to paying overtime.
a.
b.
a.
b.
c.
Per the borough's personnel handbook, overtime earned was to be credited
at a rate of 1.5 times as compensatory time to be used within two months.
If the accumulated compensatory time not used after two months it could
then be paid at a rate of time and one -half.
Stacknick credited and facilitated payment of overtime hours to her husband
without first accumulating it as compensatory time when compiling his
timecard.
15. Timecards on file with Dalton Borough for Susan Stacknick and Donald "Doc"
Stacknick cover the period August 18, 2003 through September 24, 2004.
Stacknick, 04 -051
Page 5
a. Hours on these timecards were compiled by Stacknick.
b. Hours listed were approved for payment by Borough Council.
c. Hours claimed included paid lunch periods.
16. Between August 18, 2003 and September 24, 2004 Stacknick received
compensation in the amount of $1,409.63 for 89.5 hours of paid lunch breaks.
a. The $1,409.63 total is based on 89.5 hours paid at Stacknick's hourly wage
of $15.75.
b. The 89.5 hour total is based on one half hour per day which Stacknick did
not clock out for a lunch period.
17. Between August 18, 2003 and September 24, 2004 Donald "Doc" Stacknick
received compensation in the amount of $487.34 for 29.5 hours of paid lunch
breaks.
a. The $487.34 total is based on 29.5 hours paid at Stacknick's hourly wage of
$16.52.
b. The 29.5 hour total is based on one -half hour per day which Stacknick did
not clock out for a lunch period.
18. Susan Stacknick in her official capacity as Secretary /Treasurer had access to
Borough telephones for municipal business.
a. Dalton Borough had three (3) phone lines and one (1) fax line during
Stacknick's tenure as Secretary /Treasurer.
b. Borough phone numbers included:
1. (570) 563 -1800 Stacknick's Desk
(570) 563 -0101 Zoning Office
(570) 563 -2330 Police
(570) 563 -2219 Fax/Phone
19. Prior to September 2004 Susan Stacknick used Dalton Borough phones to place
and receive calls of a personal and /or personal business nature.
a. Stacknick did not log or record in any way personal calls placed and /or
received by her.
b. Stacknick did not reimburse the Borough for the time or cost associated with
any personal call she placed or received.
20. Members of Dalton Borough Council were aware that Stacknick was using Borough
phones to place calls of a personal nature on Borough time.
a. Council did not object to this occurring because of time and services
Stacknick donated to the Borough at no cost.
1. Council was not aware of the extent of the personal calls being made
by Stacknick.
b. Stacknick's personal use of Borough phones was not questioned prior to
July 20, 2004.
Stacknick, 04 -051
Page 6
21. A Dalton Borough Telephone Policy Number G- 2004 -0001 with an effective date of
October 12, 2004 was sent to all borough employees and elected officials.
22. Policy Number G- 2004 -0001 contained, in part, the following relating to the
telephone usage:
POLICY STATEMENT:
It is the policy of the Borough of Dalton that the usage of all
phone services paid for by the Borough of Dalton be utilized
for Borough business.
PURPOSE:
To ensure that all employees and elected officials are aware of
the policy and procedures for the usage of all phone services
paid for by the Borough.
To establish procedures for making local, long- distance, and
emergency phone calls on phone services paid for by the
Borough.
BOROUGH PHONE CALLS:
All phone calls made on Borough phones by Borough
employees and elected officials in the performance of Borough
business will be paid by the Borough.
PERSONAL PHONE CALLS:
1. The Borough will permit reasonable use of the Borough
phones for brief, local calls that do not incur a charge
provide they do not interfere with Borough business.
2. Long- distance calls are permitted only when they are
collect, charged to a credit card /phone card, or charged
to the employee's home telephone number. Again,
these calls must be brief and not interfere with Borough
operation.
23. Dalton Borough phone records included calls placed by Susan Stacknick of both a
business and personal nature.
a. Calls were placed from borough phone and phone /fax numbers (570) 563-
1800 (phone), (570) 563 -2219 (phone /fax).
b. Calls of a personal nature were not logged or recorded in any fashion.
c. Council did not monitor personal calls made by Stacknick.
1. Council was not aware of the number of personal calls made by
Stacknick during her work hours.
24. Between April 2001 and July 2004 Stacknick placed at least 587 personal toll calls
using Dalton Borough phones.
Stacknick, 04 -051
Page 7
a. Stacknick's personal calls averaged 22 per month or approximately one per
day over a 27 month period.
25. Susan Stacknick incurred toll charges of at least $481.95 for personal calls she
placed using borough phones since April 2001.
26. Dalton Borough Council approved the payment of phone bills as a line item on the
monthly bill lists.
a. Stacknick prepared the monthly bill list for council review and approval.
27. Susan Stacknick was required to file a Statement of Financial Interests form by May
1 of each year containing information for the prior calendar year in her official
capacity as Secretary /Treasurer.
28. Statements of Financial Interests forms on file with Dalton Borough include the
following forms filed by Stacknick:
a. Calendar Year: 2004
No form filed
b. Calendar Year: 2003
Filed: 05/13/04 on SEC form 1/04
Position: Secretary /Treasurer
Direct /Indirect Income: None
Creditors: Highland Lease 9.9 %, M &T Bank 11 %, Chase 9.9 %,
New Holland 2%
All Other Financial Interests: None
c. Calendar Year: 2002
No form filed
d. Calendar Year: 2001
No form filed
e. Calendar Year: 2000
No form filed
f. Calendar Year: 1999
No form filed
29. Susan Stacknick failed to timely file Statements of Financial Interests forms in her
official capacity as Secretary /Treasurer since calendar year 1999.
a. No forms were filed for calendar years 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2004.
b. Stacknick's filing for calendar year 2003 was dated as being filed on May 13,
2004 two (2) weeks after the May 1, 2004 filing deadline.
c. Stacknick also failed to list Dalton Borough as a source of income on the SFI
she filed for calendar year 2003.
30. Dalton Borough records do not include any SFI's filed timely by any borough
officials prior to calendar year 2003.
a. The records may have been destroyed during the September 2003 flood.
Stacknick, 04 -051
Page 8
31. The September 2003 flood did not factor into Stacknick's late filing for calendar
year 2003 or her failure to file an SFI for calendar year 2004.
a. Both forms were due after the flood.
b. Forms were due on or before May 1, 2004 (calendar year 2003) and May 1,
2005 (calendar year 2004) respectively.
III. DISCUSSION:
At all times relevant to this matter, the Respondent, Susan Stacknick (Stacknick),
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 Stacknick, as Secretary /Treasurer of Dalton Borough
(Borough), violated Sections 1103(a), and 1104(a) of the Ethics Act when she utilized
Borough telephones to make long distance personal telephone calls and subsequently
submitted bills for those calls to the Borough Council for approval; when she submitted
timesheets for lunch hours and received compensation that was not approved under
Borough policy; when she submitted and received pay for vacation time in excess of her
available leave; and when she failed to file Statements of Financial Interests (SFIs) for the
1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002 calendar years.
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 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
Stacknick, 04 -051
Page 9
employee himself, any member of his immediate family, or a business with which he or a
member of his immediate family is associated.
Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act requires that each public official /public employee
must file a Statement of Financial Interests for the preceding calendar year, each year that
he holds the position and the year after he leaves it.
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.
Stacknick served as the Borough Secretary /Treasurer from 1991 until December
2004. As Secretary /Treasurer, Stacknick had the responsibilities, interalia, of maintaining
the time records and compiling the payroll for the Borough. Stacknick had a normal work
schedule of 30 hours a week that was increased to 35 hours in 2004. Just like other
Borough employees, Stacknick had to use the Borough time clock to document her daily
work hours.
The Borough has a personnel manual that delineates the parameters for time off,
outside employment, work hours and overtime. See, Fact Finding 4. However, the
Borough Council did not actively enforce the personnel policy. Although full and part -time
employees of the Borough are required to clock in and out on a daily basis, some Borough
employees did not clock out for lunch and thereby received compensation for lunch
periods to which they were not entitled. Some of the employees who did not clock out for
lunch periods included Stacknick, her spouse as the Borough Road Master, Zoning Officer
Fornaszewski and Borough police officers.
Although Council members were generally aware that employees occasionally did
not clock in and out for lunch breaks, Council took no action regarding such employees
who then received compensation for those lunch periods. Stacknick did not deduct lunch
breaks from her or her spouse's time cards when determining the daily hours worked for
the payroll. Consequently, Stacknick and her spouse received extra compensation for
such half hour lunch periods. Stacknick processed the payments as Borough
Secretary /Treasurer and Council approved those payments without reviewing the time
cards.
As to any overtime that employees accrued for the Borough, the policy was that
such overtime accrued at the rate of time and a half and was to be treated as
compensatory time to be used within two months. If the accumulated compensatory time
was not used in the two month period, then it would be paid as compensation at a rate of
time and a half. However, Stacknick credited and facilitated payment of the overtime to
her spouse without first treating the time as compensatory.
Due to severe flooding in September 2003, Borough records were severely
damaged or destroyed. For the period from August 2003 to September 2004, Stacknick
received compensation in the amount of $1,409.63 for 89.5 hours of paid lunch breaks.
Stacknick's spouse likewise received compensation of $487.34 for 29.5 hours of paid
lunch breaks.
As Secretary /Treasurer, Stacknick had access to Borough telephones. Although
the Borough phones were to be utilized for municipal business, Stacknick used phones to
make and receive personal or business calls. Stacknick neither logged in any
personal /business calls nor reimbursed the Borough for the time and cost associated with
those calls. Members of Council were aware of Stacknick's use of the Borough phones for
personal calls, but raised no objection because of time and services that Stacknick
donated to the Borough.
Stacknick, 04 -051
Page 10
In October 2004, the Borough issued a telephone usage policy that the Borough
phones were to be used for municipal business; however, Borough employees could use
Borough phones for brief local calls that did not interfere with Borough business and for
long distance calls if the individual would call collect, charge the call to a credit or phone
card or charge the call to the employee's home telephone number.
Between April 2001 and July 2004, Stacknick made at least 587 personal toll calls
using the Borough phones. Stacknick incurred toll charges of at least $481.95 for such
calls. The Borough paid phone bills appeared as a line item on a monthly bill list that was
prepared by Stacknick for Council's review and approval.
Although Stacknick was required to file SFIs with the Borough for the calendar years
1999 through 2004, Stacknick only filed an SFI for the calendar year 2003. For the 2003
calendar year, Stacknick listed her position as Secretary/Treasurer, indicated no indirect or
direct sources of income or other financial interests and listed four creditors. See, Fact
Finding 28. Further, the 2003 calendar year SFI was filed approximately two weeks late.
Noting that Borough records were damaged or destroyed in the September 2003 flood, the
SFIs that Stacknick was required to file for calendar years 2003 and 2004 were due after
the flooding occurred.
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
as follows:
"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 Stacknick using borough telephones to make long distance
calls of a personal nature and when she submitted bills for these
calls to the Borough Council for approval and received checks
as payment for these calls, as the personal use by Stacknick of
the borough telephones over a three year period, was de
minimis.
b. That an unintentional violation of Section 1103(a) of the Public
Official and Employee Ethics Law, 65 Pa.C.S. §1103(a) occurred
when Stacknick submitted time sheets for herself and her
husband for lunch hours which were not formally approved
under borough policy.
c. That no violation of Section 1103(a) of the Public Official and
Employee Ethics Law, 65 Pa.C.S. §1103(a) occurred when
Stacknick submitted and was paid for vacation time in excess of
the amount of leave available to her as there is insufficient
evidence to support the allegation.
d. That a violation of Section 1104(a) of the Public Official and
Employee Ethics Law, 65 Pa.C.S. §1104(a) occurred when
Stacknick failed to timely file Statements of Financial interests
for calendar years 2003 and 2004.
e. That no violation of Section 1104(a) of the Public Official and
Employee Ethics Law, 65 Pa.C.S. §1104(a) occurred as to
Stacknick, 04 -051
Page 11
Stacknick's failure to file Statements of Financial Interests for
the years 1999 through 2002, as such records may have been
destroyed by a flood.
4. Stacknick agrees to make payment in the amount of $250 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. Stacknick agrees to file an amended
Statement of Financial Interests for calendar year 2003 listing
Dalton Borough as a source of income; and file a Statement of
Financial Interests for calendar year 2004 with Dalton Borough;
and send copies of all mentioned Statements of Financial
Interests to this Commission within thirty (30) days of the
issuance of the final adjudication in this matter."
Consent Agreement, ¶3, ¶4.
As to the allegations concerning the use of Borough funds for personal calls, the
time sheets that included lunches, and excess vacation time, Stacknick had involvement in
such matters because she compiled timesheets and the payroll as Secretary /Treasurer of
the Borough. Stacknick's exercise of her duties and responsibilities were uses of authority
of office. But for the fact that Stacknick was Secretary /Treasurer, she would not have been
in a position to take such actions that were uses of authority of office under Section
1103(a) of the Ethics Act. See, Juliante, Order 809.
As to the failure by Stacknick and her spouse to clock out and in for some lunch
breaks, Stacknick used the authority of her office by compiling the timecards and
submitting payroll information. Such actions by Stacknick resulted in pecuniary benefits.
Such financial gain consisted of the compensation that Stacknick and her spouse received
as a result of being paid for lunch periods. The pecuniary benefits were private because
neither Stacknick nor her spouse were entitled to be paid for lunch periods. Lastly, the
private pecuniary benefits inured to Stacknick herself as well as her spouse who is a
member of her immediate family as that term is defined under the Ethics Act. This
Commission has held, and the courts have affirmed, that public officials /public employees
violate the Ethics Act when they receive compensation to which they are not entitled in law.
See, Hessinger, Order 931 and Wasiela, Order 932, affirmed in part, R.H. v. SEC, 673
A.2d 1004 (Pa. Commw. 1996). Accordingly, Stacknick unintentionally violated Section
1103(a) of the Ethics Act when she submitted time sheets for herself and her spouse for
lunch hours and received compensation for those lunch hours to which there was no
authorization in law.
Turning to the matter of the allegation concerning payments for excess vacation
time, there are no Fact Findings in the record to establish any improper use or payment of
vacation time on the part of Stacknick. Based upon such factual insufficiency, Stacknick
did not violate Section 1103(a) regarding the allegation that she received payment for
excess vacation usage based upon an insufficiency of evidence.
The last allegation concerning Section 1103(a) relates to Stacknick's use of
Borough telephones to make long distance calls that were of a personal or business
nature. As per Borough policy, its employees could make infrequent local calls or long
distance calls at the expense of the employee, provided Borough business was not
interrupted. Stacknick made numerous long distance personal calls on the Borough
phones and submitted the bills for payment to Council for approval rather than making
payment from her own funds. For over a period of three years, the record reflects that
Stacknick made toll calls of a personal or business nature amounting to at least $481.95.
Such actions by Stacknick were uses of authority of office. Such actions resulted in
Stacknick, 04 -051
Page 12
pecuniary benefits to Stacknick consisting of the cost of the long distance telephone calls
made by using the Borough phones. The pecuniary benefits were private because such
calls were contrary to the Borough policy regarding the use of the municipal phones. Such
actions by Stacknick constitute all of the elements necessary to establish a violation of
Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act.
However, the conflict provision of the Ethics Act provides two exceptions, one of
which deals with matters that are de minimis. We have held that the de minimis exclusion
is to be decided on a case by case basis. See, Schweinsberq, Order 900. The range of
pecuniary benefits that have been found to be de minimis have varied from a low of $2.00,
Cannon, Order 1068, to a high of $561.77. See, Bixler v. S.E.C., 847 A.2d 785 (Pa.
Commw. 2004), where Commonwealth Court held that net profit in that amount was de
minimis so as not to be violative of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act. Accordingly,
Stacknick did not violate Section 1103(a) when she made long distance personal or
business calls utilizing the Borough phones at Borough expense rather than paying for
such calls with her funds, on the basis that the cost of the calls was de minimis.
Turning to the SFI allegations, the record reflects that Stacknick failed to timely file
her SFI for calendar year 2003 and did not file for calendar year 2004. Accordingly, based
upon the express agreement of the parties, even though such years are not included in the
allegations, Stacknick violated Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act in each instance when
she failed to timely file SFIs for calendar years 2003 and 2004.
As to the 1999 through 2002 calendar year SFIs, the record in this case reflects that
Borough records prior to the September 2003 flood were damaged or destroyed. On that
basis, Stacknick did not violate Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act regarding the failure to
file SFIs for the calendar years 1999 through 2002 based upon an insufficiency of
evidence due to Borough records being damaged or destroyed by the September 2003
flood.
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, Stacknick is directed to make
payment in the amount of $250 to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and forwarded to
this Commission within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the final adjudication in this
matter. Stacknick agrees to file an amended SFI for calendar year 2003 listing Dalton
Borough as a source of income; file an SFI for calendar year 2004 with Dalton Borough;
and send copies of all SFIs to this Commission within thirty (30) days of 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. Susan Stacknick (Stacknick), as Secretary /Treasurer of Dalton Borough,
Lackawanna County, for the relevant time period was a public official subject to the
provisions of Act 9 of 1989 as codified by Act 93 of 1998.
2. Stacknick unintentionally violated Section 1103(a) when she submitted time sheets
for herself and her spouse for lunch hours and received compensation for those
lunch hours to which there was no authorization in law.
3. Stacknick did not violate Section 1103(a) as to the allegation that she received
payment for excess vacation usage based upon an insufficiency of evidence.
4. Stacknick did not violate Section 1103(a) when she made long distance personal or
business calls utilizing the Borough phones at Borough expense rather than paying
for such calls with her funds, on the basis that the cost of the calls was de minimis.
Stacknick, 04 -051
Page 13
5. Stacknick violated Section 1104(a) in each instance when she failed to timely file
SFIs for calendar years 2003 and 2004.
In Re: Susan Stacknick
ORDER NO. 1385
File Docket: 04 -051
Date Decided: 12/12/05
Date Mailed: 12/23/05
1. Susan Stacknick (Stacknick), as Secretary /Treasurer of Dalton Borough,
Lackawanna County, unintentionally violated Section 1103(a) when she submitted
time sheets for herself and her spouse for lunch hours and received compensation
for those lunch hours to which there was no authorization in law.
2. Stacknick did not violate Section 1103(a) as to the allegation that she received
payment for excess vacation usage based upon an insufficiency of evidence.
3. Stacknick did not violate Section 1103(a) when she made long distance personal or
business calls utilizing the Borough phones at Borough expense rather than paying
for such calls with her funds, on the basis that the cost of the calls was de minimis.
4. Stacknick violated Section 1104(a) in each instance when she failed to timely file
SFIs for calendar years 2003 and 2004.
5. Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Stacknick is directed to make payment in
the amount of $250 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. Stacknick will file an amended SFI for calendar
year 2003 listing Dalton Borough as a source of income, file an SFI for calendar
year 2004 with Dalton Borough; and file copies of the SFIs with this Commission
within thirty (30) days of 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