HomeMy WebLinkAbout1395 GobelIn Re: George S. Gobel
File Docket: 05 -014
X -ref: Order No. 1395
Date Decided: 2/23/06
Date Mailed: 3/13/06
Before: Louis W. Fryman, Chair
John J. Bolger, Vice Chair
Donald M. McCurdy
Paul M. Henry
Raquel K. Bergen
Nicholas A. Colafella
This is a final adjudication of the State Ethics Commission.
Procedurally, the Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission conducted
an investigation regarding a possible violation of the Public Official and Employee Ethics
Act, Act 9 of 1989, P.L. 26, 65 P.S. § 401 et seq., as codified by Act 93 of 1998, Chapter
11, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq., by the above -named Respondent. At the commencement of
its investigation, the Investigative Division served upon Respondent written notice of the
specific allegations. Upon completion of its investigation, the Investigative Division issued
and served upon Respondent a Findings Report identified as an "Investigative Complaint."
An Answer was filed and a hearing was waived. A Consent Agreement and Stipulation of
Findings were submitted by the parties to the Commission for consideration. The
Stipulation of Findings is quoted as the Findings in this Order. The Consent Agreement
was subsequently approved.
Effective December 15, 1998, Act 9 of 1989 was repealed and replaced by Chapter
11 of Act 93 of 1998, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq., which essentially repeats Act 9 of 1989
and provides for the completion of pending matters under Act 93 of 1998.
This adjudication of the State Ethics Commission is issued under Act 93 of 1998
and will be made available as a public document thirty days after the mailing date noted
above. However, reconsideration may be requested. Any reconsideration request must be
received at this Commission within thirty days of the mailing date and must include a
detailed explanation of the reasons as to why reconsideration should be granted in
conformity with 51 Pa. Code § 21.29(b). A request for reconsideration will not affect the
finality of this adjudication but will defer its public release pending action on the request by
the Commission.
The files in this case will remain confidential in accordance with Chapter 11 of Act
93 of 1998. Any person who violates confidentiality of the Ethics Act is guilty of a
misdemeanor subject to a fine of not more than $1,000 or imprisonment for not more than
one year. Confidentiality does not preclude discussing this case with an attorney at law.
Gobel, 05 -014
Page 2
I. ALLEGATION:
That George S. Gobel, a public official /public employee [sic], in his capacity as
Solicitor for Dravosburg Borough, Allegheny County, violated Section 1104(a) provisions of
the State Ethics Act (Act 93 of 1998), 65 Pa.C.S. § §1104(a) when, as Solicitor for the
Borough, he failed to file Statements of Financial Interests for the 2001 calendar year by
May 1, 2002, the 2002 calendar year by May 1, 2003 and the 2003 calendar year by May
1, 2004; and when he failed to accurately date Statements of Financial Interests for the
2001, 2002, and 2003 calendar years; and when, in his capacity as Solicitor for
McKeesport Redevelopment Authority he failed to file Statements of Financial Interests for
the 2001 calendar year by May 1, 2002, the 2002 calendar year by May 1, 2003, and the
2003 calendar year by May 1, 2004; and when he failed to accurately date Statements of
Financial Interests for the 2002 and 2003 calendar years; and when, in his capacity as
Solicitor for the Borough of Port Vue he failed to file Statements of Financial Interests for
the 2001 calendar year by May 1, 2002, the 2002 calendar year by May 1, 2003, the 2003
calendar year by May 1, 2004, and the 2004 calendar year by May 1, 2005; and when, in
his capacity as Solicitor for the Borough of Liberty he failed to file a Statement of Financial
Interests for the 2001 calendar year by May 1, 2002; and when, in his capacity as Solicitor
for the City of McKeesport Civil Service Commission he failed to file Statements of
Financial Interests for the calendar year 2000 by May 1, 2001, and the 2001 calendar year
by May 1, 2002.
II. FINDINGS:
1. George Gobel has been licensed to practice law in the State of Pennsylvania since
January 7, 1977.
2. Since 2000, Gobel has served /is serving as Solicitor for various governmental
bodies in Western Pennsylvania, including:
The Borough of Dravosburg: Since at least 2000.
The Borough of Port Vue: Service from February 2001 through March 2004.
The McKeesport Redevelopment Authority: Since November 2001.
The Borough of Liberty: Since at least 2000 through December 2001.
3. The Ethics Law requires the filing of Statements of Financial Interests by elected
and appointed public officials by May 1 of each year, in accordance with Section
1104(a).
a. Forms are to be filed each year a person holds public office and for one year
after the person leaves office.
4. Persons who serve as full -time or part -time solicitors for political subdivisions are
required to file Statements of Financial Interests in accordance with Section 1104(a)
of the Ethics Act.
a. Gobel's service as a part -time municipal solicitor would require him to file
Statements of Financial Interests.
5. The Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission contracts the printing of Statements of
Financial Interests annually.
a. The State Ethics Commission contracted with Digital Ink Printing Company in
2001 and 2003, and with Eagle Progressive Printing Company in 2002.
Gobel, 05 -014
Page 3
b. Orders for forms are placed with the printers in December of the preceding
year.
c. Forms are received by the Administrative Division of the State Ethics
Commission the December before, or the January of the filing year.
d. Forms are then bulk mailed to each municipality in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania.
6. Statements of Financial Interests forms are annually mailed to municipalities in the
Commonwealth by the printing vendor. Forms have been mailed as follows:
Filing Year Form # Date Mailed
2001 SEC -1, Rev 1/01 12/29/2000
2002 SEC -1, Rev 1/02 12/14/2001
2003 SEC -1, Rev 1/03 12/18/2002
2004 SEC -1, Rev 1/04 12/5/2003
2005 SEC -1, Rev 1/05 12/18/2004
7 Each year when forms are printed a form identification number is listed in the upper
left hand corner of the form.
a. Forms printed in 2001, 2002, and 2003 contained identification numbers of
SEC -1 1/01, SEC -1 1/02 and SEC -1 1/03 respectively.
The following findings relate to the allegation that SFI's filed by
Gobel with the Borough of Dravosburg were inaccurately dated.
8. Gobel has served as the solicitor for Dravosburg Borough for more than 18 years,
or since at least 1987.
9. Statements of Financial Interests forms were annually mailed to the Borough of
Dravosburg Secretary Brenda Honick, in 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004, by the
Administrative Division of the State Ethics Commission.
10. Brenda Honick distributes the Statement of Financial Interests forms to council, the
solicitor, tax collector and engineer, along with a memo advising that the forms are
to be returned to her by May 1.
a. Honick does not follow -up to make sure individuals file their forms.
b. When Honick receives a completed form, she normally records her initials
and the date she received the form in the "Official Use Only" block on the
right hand side of the form.
11. As Solicitor of Dravosburg Borough, Gobel annually received a Statement of
Financial Interests form from Brenda Honick.
12. On March 22, 2005, a private citizen who was not a resident or taxpayer of the
Borough of Dravosburg requested copies of Gobel's Statements of Financial
Interests from the borough.
13. When she reviewed her files, Honick found that there were none on file for Gobel.
Gobel, 05 -014
Page 4
14. Honick contacted Gobel and made him aware of the request for copies of his
Statements of Financial Interests, and that she had none in her files for him.
15. Within a couple of days, Gobel personally provided several completed Statements
of Financial Interests to Honick at the borough office.
a. Gobel filed forms for calendar years 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004.
16. The forms Gobel filed for calendar years 2001, 2002, and 2003 dated as follows:
Calendar Year Filing Date on Form Date Actually Filed
2001 02/14/02 03/29/05
2002 02/27/03 03/29/05
2003 03/16/04 03/29/05
2004 03/04/05 03/29/05
17. When Honick initialed and dated each form, she recorded the date the form was
received as the same date Gobel had dated the bottom of the form.
a. Honick actually received the forms on March 29, 2005.
b. Gobel did not instruct Honick to date the forms received the same as the
date at the bottom of the form.
18. The forms Gobel had used to file for calendar years 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004
were marked with the identification number SEC -1, Rev. 1/05.
a. Form SEC -1, Rev. 01/05 was not printed until December 2004 and mailed
until December 18, 2004 to Dravosburg Borough.
19. The form Gobel used to file for calendar year 2004 was accurately dated, as it had
been filed before May 1, 2005.
20. Honick contacted Gobel and expressed concern about the `received by' dates she
had recorded on the forms.
21. Honick used a date stamp to stamp over what she had originally recorded in the
`Official Use Only' block on each of the Statements of Financial Interests Gobel
had given her, to reflect the correct receipt date of March 29, 2005.
22. Gobel asserted that he believed that the date indicated on the form should be for
verification of the financial data for the specific year referenced.
The following findings relate to the allegations that Statements of Financial
Interests filed by Gobel with McKeesport Redevelopment Authority for calendar
years 2001, 2002, and 2003 were inaccurately dated.
23. Gobel has served as the Solicitor for the McKeesport Redevelopment Authority
since November 15, 2001.
24. Statements of Financial Interests forms were annually mailed to the McKeesport
Redevelopment Authority Manager in 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004, by the
Administrative Division of the State Ethics Commission.
25. Authority Secretary Johanna Bell distributes the forms to the Authority Board
members.
Gobel, 05 -014
Page 5
a. Bell did not provide forms to Gobel or to the previous solicitor.
b. Bell maintains the forms that are returned to her in a filing drawer in the
Authority office which is located Room 213 of McKeesport's City Hall.
c. Bell does not date the forms when she receives them.
26. In or around March or April 2005, Authority Manager Robert Callen received a
request for copies of Gobel's Statements of Financial Interests on file with the
Redevelopment Authority.
27. Callen's review concluded that no forms for Gobel were on file with the
Redevelopment Authority.
28. In approximately March /April 2005, Gobel filed Statements of Financial Interests for
calendar years 2002 and 2003, with Johanna Bell.
a. The forms used by Gobel all were identified by the same number, SEC -1,
Rev. 01/05.
b. The SFI filed by Gobel for the 2002 calendar year was dated 2/27/03 and
filed on a SEC -1, Rev. 01/05 form.
c. The SFI filed by Gobel for the 2003 calendar year was dated 3/16/04 and
filed on a SEC -1, Rev. 01/05 form.
d. SEC -1, Rev. 01/05 form was not received by the SEC until December 17,
2004 and mailed to municipalities on December 18, 2004.
29. Gobel filed a Statement of Financial Interests for calendar year 2004 with Bell on
March 4, 2005.
a. The 2004 calendar year filing was on a form identified as SEC -1, Rev.
01/05.
30. Gobel failed to file a Statement of Financial Interests for calendar year 2001 by
May 1, 2002, with the McKeesport Redevelopment Authority.
a. Gobel was required to file for calendar year 2001 because of his
appointment date of November 15, 2001.
The following findings relate to the allegation that Gobel failed to file
Statements of Financial Interests with the Borough of Port Vue
for calendar years 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004.
31. Gobel served as Solicitor for the Port Vue Borough, Allegheny County from
February 2001 through March 2004.
32. Statements of Financial Interests forms were annually mailed to the Port Vue
Secretary in 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004, by the Administrative Division of the
State Ethics Commission consistent with the Commission's mailing policy.
33. Since at least 2001, Borough Secretary Joanne Gubanic has distributed the
Statements of Financial Interests forms by placing them in individual mail slots.
a. A mail slot is designated for the solicitor and all elected officials.
Gobel, 05 -014
Page 6
b. Gubanic maintains the completed Statements of Financial Interests forms.
c. Gubanic does not specifically recall providing forms to the solicitor.
34. The only Statement of Financial Interests form on file with Port Vue Borough for
Gobel is for calendar year 2000.
a. The form was signed and dated 3/12/01.
b. The initials `JW' and date `3/12/01' are handwritten in the Official Use Only
block, indicating the date that the form was received at the Borough office.
1. The initials `JW' are those of Joan Winter, Borough Manager.
35. Gobel failed to file Statements of Financial Interests with Port Vue Borough for
calendar years 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004 by May 1 of each succeeding year.
The following findings relate to the allegation that Gobel failed
to file Statements of Financial Interests with the McKeesport
Civil Service Commission for calendar years 2000 through 2003.
36. Gobel provided legal service for the McKeesport Civil Service Commission (CSC)
on an as needed basis from at least 1995 through December 2003.
37. Although minutes of the CSC indicate that Gobel was solicitor, he only served on
an as needed basis and received no retainer fee.
38. Gobel would not be required to file a Statement of Financial Interests for such
occasional service.
39. Civil Service Commission members have not been provided with blank SFI forms
for filing.
The following findings relate to the allegation that Gobel failed
to file Statements of Financial Interests with the Borough of Liberty.
40. Gobel served as the solicitor for the Borough of Liberty, Allegheny County from at
least 2000 through December 2001.
41. Gobel filed a SFI with Liberty Borough for calendar year 2000 on February 12,
2001 on SEC -1, Rev. 1/01 form.
42. As a candidate for borough council Gobel filed Statements of Financial Interests
with Liberty Borough prior to the 2003 and 2005 primary elections.
a. Gobel filed a SFI on 3/11/03 on SEC -1, Rev. 1/03 for calendar year 2002 as
a candidate for council.
b. Gobel filed a SFI for calendar year 2004 on May 14, 2005 on SEC -1, Rev.
1/05.
43. Gobel failed to timely file a Statement of Financial Interests with the Borough of
Liberty for calendar year 2001 by May 1, 2002.
a. Gobel was required to file a form for calendar year 2001, the last year he
served as borough solicitor.
Gobel, 05 -014
Page 7
b. Gobel was required to file a form by May 1 of the calendar year after he left
the position.
44. In a Sworn Statement provided to the State Ethics Commission investigators on
December 8, 2005, Gobel provided the following information:
a. In regard to the McKeesport Civil Service Commission, Gobel provided the
following:
1. He did not consider himself the solicitor, and was not aware that he
had been appointed to that position.
2. He performed legal work as requested for the Civil Service
Commission.
3. Other attorneys that performed legal work for the Civil Service
Commission were Bruce Dice and Walter Baczkowski.
b. In regard to the dating of the forms filed with the Borough of Dravosburg and
the McKeesport Redevelopment Authority, Gobel asserted that he timely
completed forms for the years in question and put them into his files.
1. He forgot to file the forms with the respective municipal entities.
2. When he was made aware that someone was requesting copies of
his forms from the Borough of Dravosburg, he checked his files and
found the completed forms that he had not filed with the Borough and
the Redevelopment Authority.
3. Before filing the forms he transferred the information onto SEC Rev
1/05 forms, because he believed that he was required to do so based
on the directions on the form.
"Do not use forms printed in prior years to complete
filing requirements for 1998 and all subsequent years."
4. He transferred the information without rechecking it.
5. He dated the SEC Rev. 1/05 forms with the same date he had
originally completed the form because that was the date he had
originally verified the information on the form.
6. He was aware that the form had been revised, but was not aware of
the revision dates at the top of the form.
7 He assumed that anyone would know that he used a current form
because the forms had changed.
8. He was not notified by anyone that requests had been made for
copies of his SFI's at the McKeesport Redevelopment Authority.
9. He filed forms with the authority in 2005 for the previous calendar
years around the same date that he filed with the Borough of
Dravosburg.
10. He did not go back and file SFI's with the Borough of Port Vue or
Liberty Borough.
Gobel, 05 -014
Page 8
11. He never completed forms for he [sic] calendar years in question with
the Borough of Port Vue or Liberty Borough.
12. He forgot to file forms with all of the municipal entities he represented
as solicitor for calendar years 2001 -2004.
13. He filed forms as a candidate for Liberty Borough Council in 2003 and
2005 for the respective preceding calendar years.
III. DISCUSSION:
At all times relevant to this matter, the Respondent, George S. Gobel (Gobel), has
been a Solicitor subject to the financial disclosure requirements of the Public Official and
Employee Ethics Act ( "Ethics Act "), Act 93 of 1998, Chapter 11, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq.,
and specifically Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act.
The allegations are that Gobel violated Section 1104(a) (financial disclosure) of the
Ethics Act when he as Solicitor for Dravosburg Borough, Allegheny County, failed to file
Statements of Financial Interests (SFIs) for the 2001, 2002, and 2003 calendar years by
May 1 of the respective following years; and failed to accurately date SFIs for the 2001,
2002, and 2003 calendar years; and when he as Solicitor for McKeesport Redevelopment
Authority (Authority) failed to file SFIs for the 2001, 2002, and 2003 calendar years by May
1 of the respective following years; and failed to accurately date SFIs for the 2002 and
2003 calendar years; and when he as Solicitor for the Borough of Port Vue failed to file
SFIs for the 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004 calendar years by May 1 of the respective
following years; and when he as Solicitor for the Borough of Liberty failed to file an SFI for
the 2001 calendar year by May 1, 2002; and when he as Solicitor for the City of
McKeesport Civil Service Commission (CSC) failed to file SFIs for the 2000 and 2001
calendar years by May 1 of the respective following years.
Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act provides that each full -time and part -time solicitor
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.
We shall first address a procedural issue that has been created by Respondent.
Procedurally, this case was submitted to this Commission for disposition based
upon a Consent Agreement and Stipulation of Findings. Both the Consent Agreement and
Stipulation of Findings were freely negotiated and agreed to by Respondent Gobel and the
Investigative Division. Gobel's Counsel and the Investigative Division's Counsel executed
the Consent Agreement on behalf of the parties. The Consent Agreement and Stipulation
of Findings were then filed as part of the official record and entered on the official docket
for this case. After the Consent Agreement and Stipulation of Findings had become part of
the official record, they were included in the materials forwarded to each and every
Member of this Commission for review in preparation for this Commission's meeting of
February 23, 2006. On February 21, 2006 —a mere two days prior to the meeting at which
this Commission was scheduled to decide this case — Respondent's Counsel faxed a letter
to the attention of the Investigative Division's Counsel, Executive Director Contino,
indicating that Respondent had "decided" to withdraw from the Consent Agreement and
Stipulation of Findings. The letter referenced a February 17, 2006, telephone
conversation with Executive Director Contino, which appears to have been the earliest
date on which there was any mention of a possible desire on the part of Respondent to
withdraw the Consent Agreement and Stipulation of Findings. We note that although the
letter references the purported content of the February 17, 2006, telephone conversation
with Executive Director Contino and Gobel's subsequent "decision" to withdraw the
Consent Agreement and Stipulation of Findings, Respondent's Counsel never bothered to
Gobel, 05 -014
Page 9
submit to this Commission as the adjudicative body any request for permission to withdraw
the Consent Agreement and Stipulation of Findings.
In any event, Gobel, an attorney who is represented by another attorney, now seeks
to "withdraw" from the Consent Agreement and Stipulation of Findings that he freely
agreed to as a full and fair settlement of this matter. The only assertions offered as
support for Gobel's "decision" consist of the following: (1) the Investigative Division's
purported acquiescence as to the withdrawal; (2) Gobel's purported belief that he did not
violate Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act; and (3) Gobel's concerns that a finding of a
violation of the Ethics Act might negatively impact his legal practice /municipal
solicitorships.
With regard to Gobel's first assertion, the Investigative Division's purported
acquiescence in the withdrawal, our review of the Investigative Division's letter of February
21, 2006, does not indicate any agreement by the Investigative Division to such a
withdrawal, but rather, only that the Investigative Division would not interpose an objection
to Gobel's request, which would have to be submitted to this Commission in any event.
Gobel's second assertion, that he does not believe that he violated Section 1104(a)
of the Ethics Act, is belied by the fact that Gobel, an experienced attorney and Solicitor for
multiple municipalities, and who is represented by legal counsel in these proceedings,
freely entered into a Consent Agreement admitting to multiple violations of Section 1104(a)
of the Ethics Act. It is disingenuous and simply not credible for Gobel as an experienced
attorney and Solicitor to now assert that he does not believe that he violated the very law
that he so recently specifically admitted violating.
We conclude that Gobel's third assertion is the true reason that Gobel now seeks to
withdraw the Consent Agreement and Stipulation of Findings. That is, Gobel has
discovered that an admitted violation of the Ethics Act might prove detrimental to his
business interests. Even if true, we do not find such an assertion to be a valid basis for
setting aside a Consent Agreement and Stipulation of Findings.
Therefore, we deny Gobel's "request" to withdraw the Consent Agreement and
Stipulation of Findings. The parties have contractually agreed to both an end result and
specific factual Findings supporting that end result. The documents embodying the
agreement of the parties are part of the official record in this case, and Gobel may not now
discard them due to some afterthoughts on his part.
The courts have held that after parties enter into a consent agreement, the consent
agreement may not be modified absent fraud, accident or mistake. See, Sabatine v. Com.,
497 Pa. 453 (1981). There is no fraud, accident, or mistake in this case. The only
circumstance in this case is that one of the parties to the agreement has changed his mind.
The circumstance of a party changing his /her mind does not warrant setting aside a
contractual settlement agreement between the parties. See, Borg- Warner v. Board of
Finance and Review, 424 Pa. 343 (1967):
" ..once an agreement or stipulation is entered into, a later decision more
favorable to one side than the other does not allow the side so favored to
withdraw from the prior agreement or stipulation, totally disregarding all that
had transpired, and begin to relitigate a settled case."
Borg- Warner, at 348.
See also, Lapp v. Commonwealth of PA, 489 Pa. 532 (1980).
Aside from fraud, accident or mistake, we are aware of two special circumstances
where consent agreements may be subsequently nullified, neither of which exists in this
case. First, in instances where consent agreements contain language that either party
Gobel, 05 -014
Page 10
may withdraw, either party may do so based upon the express conditional language in the
agreement. No such language appears in the Consent Agreement before us. The second
exception relates to plea bargains in criminal proceedings. That exception is completely
inapplicable to these civil /administrative proceedings.
We note that there have been prior Commission cases where Respondents have
sought to withdraw from Consent Agreements. We have uniformly denied such attempts.
In Brunton, Order 884 -R, the Respondent, through his attorney, entered into a Consent
Agreement and an Order was issued. Brunton then dismissed his counsel and sought
reconsideration. In refusing to allow Brunton to withdraw from the Agreement, we noted:
"Whether any breakdown in communication occurred between Brunton and
his prior attorney must be confined to the scope of Brunton's voluntary
decision as to that legal representation. Brunton, through his then legal
representative, entered into the agreement with the Investigative Division
which [sic] became binding. There is not, nor should there be, any latitude
at this juncture to set aside the agreement which [sic] the parties readily
accepted."
Brunton at p. 3. See also, Beeler, Order 965 -R; Keyser, Order 1156 -R. Although these
prior Commission decisions involved situations where a Commission Order had been
issued and the withdrawal was presented in the form of a request for reconsideration, the
reasoning for denying such requests has equal validity in the present case.
Not only is there no good reason for granting Gobel's request, but there are
compelling reasons for denying it. First, if we would allow Respondents like Gobel to
break Consent Agreements without satisfying any recognized legal standard, the integrity
of the negotiation /settlement process would be jeopardized. Additionally, allowing a
Respondent like Gobel to break a Consent Agreement after the Consent Agreement and
Stipulation of Findings have been filed, docketed and reviewed by the Commissioners
could lead to " Lyness" issues involving a resulting taint to this Commission as an
adjudicative body. If we were to agree with Gobel and void the contractual agreement,
proceed to hearing, and decide the case having had prior exposure to the Consent
Agreement and Stipulation of Findings, a commingling issue would undoubtedly arise.
See, Lyness v. State Board of Medicine, 529 Pa. 535 (1992). We shall not permit
Respondents to undermine the proceedings of this Commission through such
machinations.
For the reasons noted herein, Gobel's request to withdraw from the Consent
Agreement and Stipulation of Findings is denied.
Having disposed of the procedural issue, we shall now summarize the facts as set
forth in the Stipulation of Findings agreed to and filed by the parties.
As a licensed attorney in Pennsylvania, Gobel has a number of solicitorships for
certain governmental bodies in Western Pennsylvania, including Dravosburg Borough,
Port Vue Borough, the Authority and Liberty Borough. Gobel on occasion also has
performed legal services for CSC. As a solicitor, Gobel is required to file SFIs as per §
1104(a) of the Ethics Act, which provides in part: "Persons who are full -time or part -time
solicitors for political subdivisions are required to file under this section." 65 Pa.C.S. §
1104(a).
This Commission contracts with a printing company to produce SFI forms each
December in preparation for the filings that are due in the following year. The SFI forms
have an identification number that indicates when the forms were produced. The
administrative division of this agency maintains records as to the exact date of the yearly
Gobel, 05 -014
Page 11
mailing of SFI forms to the various governmental bodies and political subdivisions in
Pennsylvania.
Gobel has served as Dravosburg Borough Solicitor since at least 1987. In 2001,
2002, 2003, and 2004, the Administrative Division of this Commission mailed SFI forms to
the Dravosburg Borough secretary, who then distributed the forms to council members, the
Solicitor and others. As Solicitor of Dravosburg Borough, Gobel annually received SFI
forms from the Dravosburg Borough secretary.
The Dravosburg Borough secretary does not do any follow up to ensure that
individuals file their SFIs. When a resident in March of 2005 requested copies of Gobel's
SFIs, the secretary reviewed Borough records and found that no SFIs were on file for
Gobel.
After the secretary notified Gobel, he sent completed SFIs a few days later to the
secretary at the Borough office. The SFI forms that Gobel sent were for the calendar years
2001 through 2004. Although all four SFIs were actually filed on March 29, 2005, the
forms had the following dates on them: February 14, 2002 for the calendar year 2001;
February 27, 2003 for the calendar year 2002; March 16, 2004 for the calendar year 2003;
and March 4, 2005 for calendar year 2004. Even though Gobel did not direct the secretary
to do so, she initialed and dated each form with the date that Gobel placed on the form
rather than the actual filing dates of March 29, 2005.
Gobel's SFIs for calendar years 2001 through 2004 were marked with the SEC -1,
Rev. 01/05 identification number, which means that the forms for calendar years 2001
through 2003 did not exist on the dates that Gobel listed on the forms. However, for the
2004 calendar year, which was due on or before May 1, 2005, that SFI form was in
existence. The secretary subsequently used a date stamp to reflect the correct receipt
dates of March 29, 2005. Gobel asserts that he believed that the dates on the form should
reflect the dates of verification of the financial data rather than the filing dates.
As to the Authority, Gobel has served as the solicitor since November 15, 2001. For
the calendar years 2001 through 2004, the Administrative Division of this Commission
mailed SFI forms to the Authority manager. The Authority secretary distributed the forms
to the members, but not to Gobel or the prior solicitor. In early 2005, the Authority
manager received a request for copies of Gobel's SFIs on file with the Authority. The
manager made a review and found there were no SFIs on file with the Authority from
Gobel.
In early 2005, Gobel filed SFIs for calendar years 2002 and 2003 with the Authority
secretary. These forms had an identification number of SEC -1, Rev. 01/05, but contained
dates of February 27, 2003 for the 2002 calendar year SFI and March 16, 2004 for the
2003 calendar year SFI. SFIs with the aforesaid identification number did not exist on
those two dates. However, for calendar year 2004, Gobel filed on March 4, 2005, using a
form that was consistent with the foregoing identification number. Gobel failed to file a SFI
for calendar year 2001 with the Authority even though he was required to do so.
Turning to Port Vue Borough, Gobel served as solicitor from February 2001 through
March 2004. The Administrative Division of this Commission mailed SFI forms for calendar
years 2001 through 2004 to the Port Vue secretary who distributed the forms by placing
them in individual mail slots. The secretary has no specific recollection of providing the
forms to the solicitor. The only SFI on file with the Borough for Gobel is for calendar year
2000, which has a signing date of March 12, 2001. For that SFI form, the "Official Use
Only" box contains the initials JW and a date of March 12, 2001. Gobel failed to file SFIs
with Port Vue Borough for calendar years 2001 through 2004 by May 1 of each succeeding
year.
Gobel, 05 -014
Page 12
For the CSC, Gobel provided legal services on an as needed basis. Although the
CSC minutes reflect that he was solicitor, he only served on an as needed basis with no
retainer. In that Gobel was not the solicitor, he did not have to file SFIs with the CSC.
The last municipality under consideration is Liberty Borough where Gobel served as
solicitor from at least 2000 through December 2001. Gobel filed a SFI for calendar year
2000 as well as SFIs for the 2003 and 2005 primary elections. However, Gobel failed to
timely file a SFI with Liberty Borough for calendar year 2001 by May 1, 2002.
Lastly, Gobel provided a sworn statement to SEC investigators in December 2005
setting forth his point of view, as to the circumstances of this case. See, Fact Finding 44.
Having highlighted the Stipulated Findings and substantive issues before us, we
shall now apply the Ethics Act to this case.
The parties' Consent Agreement provides in part as follows:
"a. That violations of Section 1104(a) of the Public Official and
Employee Ethics Law, 65 Pa.C.S. §1104(a) occurred in relation to
Gobel's failure to file Statements of Financial Interests for the
below listed years by May 1 St of the respective year following such
calendar year.
Municipality
Dravosburg Borough
Liberty Borough
McKeesport Redevelopment Authority
Port Vue Borough
Calendar Year
2001 - 2003
2001
2001 - 2003
2001 - 2004
b. That an unintentional violation of Section 1104(a) of the Public
Official and Employee Ethics Law, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1104(a) occurred
when Gobel dated his Statements of Financial Interests for the
2001, 2002, and 2003 calendar years for Dravosburg Borough
and for the 2002 and 2003 calendar years for McKeesport
Redevelopment Authority for the time period representing when
the forms should have been filed rather than when they were
actually filed such being done based on his belief and sworn
statement that the dates to be included on the forms were the
dates that he verified the information and content of the forms,
and not the dates that he was submitting the forms for filing with
the municipal entities.
c. No violation of Section 1104(a) of the Public Official and
Employee Ethics Law occurred in relation to Gobel's failure to file
Statements of Financial Interests with the McKeesport Civil
Service Commission as he was not the solicitor for that agency
and thus not required to file."
Consent Agreement, ¶3.
Gobel also agrees to make payment in the amount of $500 to the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania and to file complete and accurate SFIs in the specified municipalities with
copies forwarded to this Commission within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the final
adjudication in this matter.
In considering the Consent Agreement, it is clear that the recommended violations
and unintentional violation of Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act have been established.
Gobel, 05 -014
Page 13
Gobel, as the Solicitor for a number of municipalities, is required to file SFIs. In
some instances Gobel filed the SFIs. In other instances Gobel states that he prepared the
SFIs and placed them in his files but forgot to file them. In still other instances Gobel did
not complete /file the SFIs.
In 2005, when filing some of the delinquent SFIs (Dravosburg Borough and the
Authority), Gobel backdated the SFIs. In a sworn statement Gobel claims that when he
was about to file these particular SFIs, he construed the filing instructions, "Do not use
forms printed in prior years to complete filing requirements for 1998 and all subsequent
years," to mean that he had to copy the information from the original forms (that he had
completed but forgotten to file) to the current ones. Gobel states that in so doing, he used
the original signing dates; such actions gave rise to the backdating issue. See, Fact
Finding 44.
As to CSC, Gobel did not file SFIs because he was not the appointed solicitor.
As to the forms that Gobel purportedly completed but forgot to file, he asserts that
he was required to use the current forms to effectuate his filings and in so doing had to
copy the information from the existing (outdated) forms to the current forms. Gobel further
argues that he copied the original (backdated) signing dates because those were the dates
when he "verified" the filing information.
With regard to the backdating issue in Dravosburg Borough and the Authority, we
have established from the record that the dates placed on those SFIs did not reflect the
actual filing dates. In the present posture of this case where our decision is based upon a
Consent Agreement, we need not weigh evidence to determine whether Gobel intentionally
backdated the SFIs or used those dates through a mistaken belief that the signing dates
must reflect the "verification" dates when he completed the form, rather than the filing
dates. As per the Consent Agreement, we hold that Gobel unintentionally violated Section
1104(a) of the Ethics Act when he dated his SFIs for the calendar years 2001, 2002 and
2003 for Dravosburg Borough and calendar years 2002 and 2003 for the Authority, using
dates when the forms should have been filed rather than the dates they were actually filed.
See, Draper, Order 1229.
Based upon the Stipulated Findings that Gobel failed to timely file SFIs in the
following municipalities for the specified calendar years, we find that Gobel violated
Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act when he failed to timely file SFIs for Dravosburg Borough
for the calendar years 2001, 2002 and 2003; when he failed to timely file SFIs for Liberty
Borough for the calendar year 2001; when he failed to timely file SFIs for the Authority for
the calendar years 2001, 2002 and 2003; and when he failed to timely file SFIs for Port
Vue Borough for the calendar years 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004. See, Tracy, Order 1255.
As to CSC, given that Gobel was not the Solicitor, we find that Gobel did not violate
Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act as to any alleged failure to file SFIs with the CSC in that
he was not the Solicitor for that municipal body.
Based upon the Consent Agreement, Gobel is directed to make payment in the
amount of $500 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.
Gobel is also directed to file complete and accurate SFIs to correct the SFI filing
deficiencies noted above. The originals are to be filed with the respective municipalities
with copies filed with this Commission for compliance verification purposes. Such SFIs
must be filed and forwarded to this Commission within thirty (30) days of the issuance of
the final adjudication in this matter.
Gobel, 05 -014
Page 14
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. George S. Gobel ( "Gobel "), as an appointed part -time Solicitor, is subject to the
Statement of Financial Interests (SFI) filing requirements of the Ethics Act.
2. Gobel unintentionally violated Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act when he dated his
SFIs for the calendar years 2001, 2002 and 2003 for Dravosburg Borough and
calendar years 2002 and 2003 for the McKeesport Redevelopment Authority, using
dates when the forms should have been filed rather than the dates they were
actually filed.
3. Gobel violated Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act when he failed to timely file SFIs
for Dravosburg Borough for the calendar years 2001, 2002 and 2003; when he
failed to timely file SFIs for Liberty Borough for the calendar year 2001; when he
failed to timely file SFIs for McKeesport Redevelopment Authority for the calendar
years 2001, 2002 and 2003; and when he failed to timely file SFIs for Port Vue
Borough for the calendar years 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004.
4. Gobel did not violate Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act as to his failure to file SFIs
with the McKeesport Civil Service Commission in that he was not the Solicitor for
that municipal body.
In Re: George S. Gobel
ORDER NO. 1395
File Docket: 05 -014
Date Decided: 2/23/06
Date Mailed: 3/13/06
1 George S. Gobel ( "Gobel "), as an appointed part -time Solicitor unintentionally
violated Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act when he dated his SFIs for the calendar
years 2001, 2002 and 2003 for Dravosburg Borough and calendar years 2002 and
2003 for the McKeesport Redevelopment Authority, using dates when the forms
should have been filed rather than the dates they were actually filed.
2. Gobel violated Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act when he failed to timely file SFIs
for Dravosburg Borough for the calendar years 2001, 2002 and 2003; when he
failed to timely file SFIs for Liberty Borough for the calendar year 2001; when he
failed to timely file SFIs for McKeesport Redevelopment Authority for the calendar
years 2001, 2002 and 2003; and when he failed to timely file SFIs for Port Vue
Borough for the calendar years 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004.
3. Gobel did not violate Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act as to his failure to file SFIs
with the McKeesport Civil Service Commission in that he was not the Solicitor for
that municipal body.
4. Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Gobel is directed to make payment in the
amount of $500 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.
5. Gobel is directed to file complete and accurate Statements of Financial Interests
correcting the deficiencies noted in this adjudication in the respective municipalities
with copies filed with this Commission for compliance verification purposes. Such
SFIs must be filed and forwarded to this Commission within thirty (30) days of the
issuance of the final adjudication in this matter.
6. Compliance with paragraphs 4 and 5 of this Order will result in the closing of this
case with no further action by this Commission. Non - compliance will result in the
institution of an order enforcement action.
BY THE COMMISSION,
Louis W. Fryman, Chair