Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1392R VolanskyIn Re: Joseph Volansky 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 Reverend Scott Pilarz 04 -050 Order No. 1392 -R 5/31/06 6/12/06 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 Effective December 15, 1998, Act 9 of 1989 was repealed and replaced by Chapter 11 of Act 93 of 1998, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq., which essentially repeats Act 9 of 1989 and provides for the completion of pending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. I. ALLEGATION: That Joseph Volansky, a public official /public employee, in his capacity as a councilman of Masontown Borough, Fayette County, violated Sections 1103(a), 1103(f) and 1105(b)(5)(8)(9) of the State Ethics Act (Act 93 of 1998), 65 Pa.C.S. § §1103(a), 1103(f) and 1105(b)(5)(8)(9) when he used the authority of his office for a private pecuniary gain of himself and /or a business with which he is associated, by utilizing borough equipment and supplies for his own use; when he authorized the purchase of a ladder with borough funds which was converted for use in his private business; when he contracted with the borough, through the use of a third party in excess of $500.00 without an open and public process; and when he failed to disclose all direct and indirect sources of income on Statements of Financial Interests filed for the 2002 and 2003 calendar years; and when he failed to disclose on his Statement of Financial Interests filed for the 2003 calendar year his office, directorship, or employment in Home Care Services and his financial interest in Home Care Services. II. FINDINGS: 1. Volansky listed the following services provided by Home Care Services on his business card submitted to potential customers: Painting Inside /Outside -by Brush or Spraying, Power Washing Homes- Decks- Concrete, Landscaping, Roofing, Aluminum /Siding - Remodeling, Windows, Decks, Sidewalks, Plumbing, Electrical, Doors, Drywall, Textured Walls /Ceilings. a. Volansky has utilized part -time persons to assist him with the jobs he obtained through Home Care Services. The following findings relate to the allegation that Volansky contracted with the borough, through the use of a third party in excess of $500.00 without an open and public process. 2. In or about February 2000 Volansky was advised by the Masontown Borough Solicitor that it could be a conflict of interest if Volansky's company, Home Care Services, bid on and received contracts with the borough. a. Volansky, as Home Care Services, bid on a borough project in August 1999 and was awarded the contract. b. Some council members questioned whether a conflict of interest existed regarding a council member bidding on borough work. c. Following his discussion with the borough solicitor, Volansky withdrew his bid to the borough and did not complete the project. 3. Following receipt of the solicitor's advice regarding conflicts of interest, Frank Boord, an independent contractor who regularly worked on a part -time basis for Home Care Services, began submitting quotes to perform services for the borough. 4. Frank Boord worked for Home Care Services/Volansky on an intermittent basis beginning in 2000. a. Boord was paid for his work by Volansky either by check or cash. b. Boord performed various errands and jobs for Volansky personally as well as through his business. Volansky, 04 -050 Page 3 1. Jobs that Boord performed personally for Volansky included: grass cutting, painting, and equipment repair. c. Boord occasionally performed jobs and errands for Volansky without pay. 1. Boord performed jobs and errands for Volansky as a friend. 2. Volansky likewise helped Boord in various matters, including lending equipment to Boord, as a friend. 3. Volansky did not consider these reciprocal activities of Boord and himself to have any strings attached. d. Boord received payments totaling about $1,119.00 from Volansky's Home Care Services checking account between July 2000 and October 2002, for services that he rendered as an independent contractor. 5. Volansky assisted Frank Boord in obtaining three minor borough construction projects between August 2001 and July 2003. a. Boord worked for Home Care Services during most of the time period that Volansky assisted Boord in obtaining the borough work, i.e., during 2001 and 2002. b. The work was awarded without being bid or proposals being solicited. c. Council did not vote to award the work to Frank Boord. 6. Volansky assisted Frank Boord in preparing Proposals for the borough jobs, and in the actual performance of the jobs. 7 Volansky provided and assisted in preparing the Proposal forms for the borough work to be performed by Boord. a. Boord did not have substantial experience regarding the preparation of Proposals, including how much to charge for the work. 8. The Home Care Services van and various tools and equipment were used by Boord and Volansky at various times to complete the borough work obtained by Boord with the assistance of Volansky. a. Some of Boord's hand tools were also used. 9. With the assistance of Volansky, Boord completed most of the work on the borough contracts issued to Boord. a. On occasion, Boord's cousin Doug VanBerth Jr. and friend David Elsbury worked with him. 10. While serving as council president, Volansky assisted Frank Boord in obtaining borough work in August 2001, which consisted of replacing the roof on the water plant. a. The work was not publicly advertised and bid. b. No other proposals were obtained. Volansky, 04 -050 Page 4 11. More specifically, with Volansky's assistance, a Proposal dated 07/30/01 was submitted by Frank Boord for the replacement of the roof on the water plant, in the amount of $1,600.00. a. Volansky provided substantial assistance to Boord in preparing the Proposal. 12. The Proposal detailed the following work: Roofs 18x23 Bathroom Roof 7x6 15x13 Paint trim & eve boards This is added on $150.00 Due $1,375.00 Remove all old materials; replace any bad boards; install new felt — shingles; drip edges, seal all necessary areas. Remove old lab — doors (3) total; install new lab -doors commercially & necessary hardware. Repair soffit & fascia around coal bin area. Clean all gutters (water plant) & rehang gutters pole bldg. Remainder on door (3) installation. Price quoted is labor only. Borough responsible for all materials. $1,450.00 $ 150.00 $1,600.00 13. Borough Water Revenue Fund check #11448, dated 08/15/01 in the amount of $1,375.00, was issued to Frank Boord for the work he performed on the water plant roof. a. Volansky's facsimile signature is reflected, along with the signatures of Treasurer, Russell King and Secretary, Donna Weimer. b. The memo section reflects "partial payment ". c. The work listed on Boord's proposal relating to the installation of doors was not completed at the time due to a problem with the ordering of the doors. 14. The payment to Frank Boord was approved as part of the bill list at the August 14, 2001 Council Meeting. a. The vote was to approve Accounts Payables for payment as listed. a. The vote was 6/1, with one member absent. b. Volansky was present at the meeting and participated in the vote to approve the payment to Frank Boord. 15. Volansky assisted Frank Boord in obtaining borough work in February 2002, which consisted of installing six doors at the sewer and water plants and the street garage. a. The work was not publicly advertised and bid. Volansky, 04 -050 Page 5 b. No other proposals were obtained. c. This was a continuation of the work originally intended to be performed in August 2001. 16. More specifically, a Proposal, dated 2/11/02, was submitted by Boord for the installation of six doors at the sewer and water plants, in the amount of $1,400.00. a. Volansky assisted Boord in obtaining all the necessary information and pricing to complete the Proposal. b. The Proposal was signed by Frank Boord. 17. The proposal prepared by Volansky and Boord detailed the following work to be completed: Entrance (doors) installation = 6 Removal & discard all old material of existing doors. Remove doors — frame, cut off bolts & cement block opening if necessary — install new frames — new doors — hardware. Labor only $1,100.00 Add 50.00 per door X 6 doors $ 300.00 Permanent door frames are to be installed for pre -hung doors = plus material 18. Purchase Order #4917, dated 02/11/02 was completed by Barry Clemmer, Water and Sewage Department Supervisor, at Volansky's direction. a. The vendor is listed as Frank Boord. b. The description was for the installation of six new doors at the sewage and water plant, in the amount of $1,100.00. c. The P.O. was approved by Council President Carole Daniels and Committee Chairman Harry Lee. 1. Daniels and Lee had authorized the P.O. after reviewing the areas where the doors were to be replaced. 19. Purchase Order #4902, dated 01/11/02, completed by Barry Clemmer, was for the six doors purchased from Lowe's. a. The P.O. listed additional items not related to the door installation. b. The P.O. was only signed by Council President Carole Daniels c. A Lowe's Project Estimate for the cost of the steel doors was attached to the P.O. d. Clemmer tried to obtain quotes for the purchase of the doors from other vendors, but received no reply. 20. Volansky oversaw the job performed by Boord, and assisted Boord with the installation. 21. Payment to Boord for the installation of the six doors was issued on March 20, 2002, from two Borough accounts, as follows: Volansky, 04 -050 Page 6 a. Water Revenue Fund check #11697 was issued in the amount of $700.00, which represented'/ of the cost of the installation of the doors. b. Public Utility System Fund check #7916 was issued in the amount of $700.00, which represented'/ of the cost of the installation of the doors. 22. Approval of the payment to Boord was included on the Accounts Payable bill list at the February 26, 2002 Board Meeting. a. Volansky participated in the vote to approve the Accounts Payable which included the payment to Frank Boord. 1. Volansky made the motion to approve payment of the Accounts Payable list. 2. The motion passed by a 5/1/1 vote. 23. Volansky assisted Frank Boord in obtaining borough work in July 2003, which consisted of replacing double metal doors at the water plant. a. The work was not required by the Borough code to be publicly advertised and bid because the amount was under $500.00. b. No other proposals were obtained. 24. More specifically, a Proposal dated 07/02/03, was submitted to the borough by Frank Boord for the installation of the double metal doors at the water plant, in the amount of $225.00. a. Volansky substantially assisted Boord in preparing the Proposal. b. Volansky substantially assisted Boord in determining the cost of the work to be performed. 25. The Proposal dated 07/02/03 detailed the following work: Remove old 48" door and framing. Install new double (steel) door French style — install new frame work. Install new deadbolt — turn knob and lock, frame & caulk all exposed areas. Labor only $225.00. a. The Proposal was in an envelope addressed to "Masontown Boro" with a note submitted by Volansky with instructions to: "Give ck To Joe To Give Frank" 26. Volansky helped Boord install the double metal doors at the Water Plant. 27. Borough Purchase Order #4130, dated 07/06/03, was prepared and signed by Volansky, authorizing Frank Boord to install new double French doors at the Water Plant and remove the old doors for the cost of $225.00. a. The P.O. was signed by Committee Chairman Harry Lee. 28. Purchase Orders #4022 and #4025, dated 06/19/03 and 06/30/03 respectively, were prepared and signed by Volansky, authorizing the purchase of the doors, Volansky, 04 -050 Page 7 lumber, accessories, and supplies needed to install the door and frame for the new door at the water plant. a. Additional items, unrelated to the door installation were included on both purchase orders. b. The purchase orders were also signed by Committee Chairman Harry Lee. 29. Payment to Boord for the installation of the double doors at the Water Plant was issued on 07/07/03, from the Borough Water Revenue Fund account. a. Check #12237 was issued in the amount of $225.00. 1. Volansky's facsimile signature appears on the check. b. The check was endorsed by Frank Boord and cashed. 30. Approval of the payment to Boord was included on the Accounts Payable bill list at the July 8, 2003 Board Meeting. 31. The minutes of the July 8, 2003 Council Meeting, reflect that, prior to the vote to approve the Accounts Payable, a question was raised as to who purchased the material and performed the labor on the door installation, by Council Person Daniels. Volansky responded as follows: He made the decision to purchase the doors due to the fact that they were needed and he found them at a lower cost." 32. Volansky participated in and cast the deciding vote to approve payment of the bills during the July 8, 2003 meeting. a. The vote passed 3/2, with five members present. b. Council members Popovich and Daniels voted against the motion. 33. Volansky asserts that he assisted Boord in obtaining and performing the foregoing minor construction projects due to their friendship, and without any strings attached. 34. Prior to and during the period that Volansky assisted Boord in obtaining and performing the foregoing minor construction projects, Borough Council had approved other minor construction projects and purchases not involving Volansky via similar procedures, without advertising, bidding or the solicitation of proposals. The following findings relate to the allegations that Joseph Volansky failed to disclose sources of income and business interests on Statements of Financial Interests. 35. In his capacity as a Masontown Borough Councilman, Volansky filed Statements of Financial Interests (SFIs) as follows: Calendar Year Dated Filed 2000 4/30/01 2001 4/3/02 2002 3/11/03 2003 4/4/04 Volansky, 04 -050 Page 8 36. On SFIs filed for the 2000 and 2001 calendar years Volansky disclosed the following regarding direct /indirect sources of income and business interests. Block 10 Direct /Indirect Sources of Income: Dave Stanley Consultants Block 13 Office, Directorship or Employment in any Business: Block 14 Financial Interest in any legal Entity In Business for Profit: Sources of Income None (Block 10) Office, Directorship or None Employment in any Business Financial Interest in any None Business for Profit Home Care Services Position Held: Owner (2000) Prop. (2001) Home Care Services Interest Held: Owner (2000) Prop. (2001) 37. Volansky disclosed the following regarding sources of income and business interests on SFIs filed for the 2002 and 2003 calendar years: a. 2002: Sources of Income: (Block 10) Office, Directorship or Employment in any Business: (Block 13) Financial Interests In any Legal Entity in Business for Profit: b. 2003 Occupation or Profession Mining (Block 06) Dave Stanley Consultants Home Care Services Home Care Services Position Held: None Disclosed Home Care Services Position held: Proprietorship 38. Volansky maintained an account for Home Care Services at Parkvale Bank (formerly Second National Bank) through 12/02. a. Deposits into the account during the years 2000 through 2002 totaled approximately as follows: 2000 — $31,302.99 2001 — $ 6,176.10 2002 — $ 8,882.72 39. Volansky unintentionally failed to disclose on his SFI filed for the 2002 calendar year income in excess of $1,300 received from Home Care Services. a. Volansky received gross payments of approximately $8,882.72 in 2002. Volansky, 04 -050 Page 9 40. Volansky unintentionally failed to disclose income in excess of $1,300 on his SFI filed for the 2003 calendar year. a. Volansky received income from Dave Stanley Consultants in 2003. c. Volansky has been employed as a mine examiner by Dave Stanley Consultants since at least 2000. III. DISCUSSION: At all times relevant to this matter, the Respondent, Joseph Volansky (Volansky), 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 Volansky, as a Masontown Borough Councilman, violated Sections 1103(a), 1103(f) and 1105(b)(5)(8)(9) of the Ethics Act when he utilized borough equipment and supplies for his own use; when he authorized the purchase of a ladder with borough funds and then used the ladder in his private business; when he contracted with the borough, through a third party, in excess of $500.00 without an open and public process; and when he failed to disclose sources of income of $1,300 or more on Statements of Financial Interests (SFIs) filed for the 2002 and 2003 calendar years; and when he failed to disclose on his SFIs filed for the 2003 calendar year his office, directorship, or employment in Home Care Services and his financial interest in Home Care Services. 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 Volansky, 04 -050 Page 10 employee himself, any member of his immediate family, or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act imposes certain restrictions as to contracting. Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act provides: Section 1103. Restricted activities (f) No public official or public employee or his spouse or child or any business in which the person or his spouse or child is associated shall enter into any contract valued at $500 or more with the governmental body with which the public official or public employee is associated or any subcontract valued at $500 or more with any person who has been awarded a contract with the governmental body with which the public official or public employee is associated, unless the contract has been awarded through an open and public process, including prior public notice and subsequent public disclosure of all proposals considered and contracts awarded. In such a case, the public official or public employee shall not have any supervisory or overall responsibility for the implementation or administration of the contract. Any contract or subcontract made in violation of this subsection shall be voidable by a court of competent jurisdiction if the suit is commenced within 90 days of the making of the contract or subcontract. 65 Pa. C. S. § 1103(f). Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act provides in part that no public official /public employee or spouse or child or business with which he or the spouse or child is associated may enter into a contract with his governmental body valued at five hundred dollars or more or any subcontract valued at five hundred dollars or more with any person who has been awarded a contract with the governmental body with which the public official /public employee is associated unless the contract is awarded through an open and public process including prior public notice and subsequent public disclosure. § 1105. Statement of financial interests (b) Required information. - -The statement shall include the following information for the prior calendar year with regard to the person required to file the statement: (5) The name and address of any direct or indirect source of income totaling in the aggregate $1,300 or more. However, this provision shall not be construed to require the divulgence of confidential information protected by statute or existing professional codes of ethics or common law privileges. (8) Any office, directorship or employment of any nature whatsoever in any business entity. (9) Any financial interest in any legal entity engaged in business for profit. Volansky, 04 -050 Page 11 65 Pa.C.S. §§ 1105(b)(5), (8), (9). 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 every public official /public employee and candidate list any office, directorship or employment in any business entity. Section 1105(b)(9) of the Ethics Act quoted above requires that every public official/ public employee and candidate list any financial interest in any legal entity engaged in business for profit. 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. Volansky has served as a Council Member of Masontown Borough; in a private capacity Volansky provides handyman services through his business, Home Care Services. Volansky uses part -time help to assist him on jobs obtained by Home Care Services. In August of 1999, Volansky, through Home Care Services, submitted a bid and received a Borough contract. After some Council Members questioned whether Volansky had a conflict, the Borough Solicitor opined that it would be a conflict of interest if Volansky's company bid on and received Borough contracts. Volansky then withdrew his bid and did not complete the project. Thereafter, Frank Boord, an independent contractor who worked on a part -time basis for Home Care Services, began submitting quotes to perform services for the Borough. The business relationship between Frank Boord and Volansky was fluid: at times Boord worked on an intermittent basis and received compensation, at times Boord worked on a personal basis for Volansky as well as through his business, at times Boord performed services for Volansky without pay, and at times Volansky performed services for Boord. Boord received payments totaling $1,119 from Home Care Services for services that he rendered as an independent contractor between July 2000 and October 2002. Volansky assisted Boord in obtaining three minor Borough construction projects between August 2001 and July 2003. That work was awarded without a bid process and without Borough Council voting to award a contract. Volansky not only assisted Boord in preparing the proposals for Borough jobs, but also in the actual performance of the work. Boord, in doing the work, used the Home Care Service's van, various tools and equipment with the assistance of Volansky. One of the Borough projects on which Volansky assisted Boord in obtaining the work involved replacing the roof on the water plant. There was no advertisement for bids or proposals obtained, merely a proposal submitted by Boord that was prepared with Volansky's assistance. The proposal provided that the Borough would supply $1,600 in materials and Boord would provide the labor for $1,375. After the project was completed, the Borough issued a check in the amount of $1,375 to Boord for the work performed on the project. The Borough check contained Volansky's facsimile signature and the signatures of the Treasurer and Secretary. Volansky participated in the vote of Borough Council to approve a list of Accounts Payable that included the payment to Boord. In February 2002, Volansky aided Boord in obtaining Borough work for the installation of six doors in the sewer and water plants and street garage. There was no solicitation for bids. Volansky aided Boord in obtaining the information and pricing for his proposal. Boord's proposal provided for labor in the amount of $1,100 for the six doors, with an add on of $50 per door. Volansky oversaw and assisted Boord with the Volansky, 04 -050 Page 12 installation of the doors. Following the completion of the installation, two checks, each in the amount of $700, were issued to Boord. Volansky participated in approving the payments that were part of the Accounts Payable list and made the motion for approval. Another project in which Volansky assisted Boord in obtaining Borough work was for the replacement of metal doors in the water plant. Since the work was less than $500, there was no Borough requirement for advertising for bids. Volansky helped Boord in determining the cost of the work to be performed, in preparing the proposal and in installing the double metal doors at the water plant. Volansky prepared and signed purchase orders as to the door installation project. Following the completion of the project, a check in the amount of $225 was issued to Boord. The check contained a facsimile signature of Volansky. When the Accounts Payable list was before the Council for review and approval, one member inquired as to who purchased the material and performed the work on the door installation. Volansky responded that "...[h]e made the decision to purchase the doors and he found them at a lower cost." Volansky participated and cast the deciding vote to approve the Accounts Payable list that included the payment to Board. During the time that Volansky assisted Boord in obtaining and performing these various Borough projects, there were other construction projects and purchases not involving Volansky that were effectuated without advertising, bidding or solicitation of proposals. As a Borough Councilman, Volansky filed SFIs with the Borough for the calendar years 2000 through 2003, the details of which appear in Fact Findings 36 and 37. However, Volansky failed to disclose income in excess of $1,300 received from Home Care Services on his 2002 calendar year SFI. In addition, Volansky failed to disclose income in excess of $1,300 on his 2003 calendar year SFI from Dave Stanley Consultants, as well as his employment in that business. 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 an unintentional violation of Section 1103(a) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Law, 65 Pa.C.S. §1103(a) occurred in relation to Volansky's business relationship with Frank Boord regarding minor construction projects for Masontown Borough. b. That no violation of Section 1103(f) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Law, 65 Pa.C.S. §1103(f) occurred concerning no bid contracts. c. That a technical violation of Section 1105(b) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Law, 65 Pa.C.S. §1105(b) occurred when Volansky failed to report Homecare Services as a source of income on his Statement of Financial Interests for calendar year 2002 and failed to report Dave Stanley Consultants on his Statement of Financial Interests for calendar year 2003. Volansky, 04 -050 Page 13 4. Volansky agrees to make payment in the amount of $1,000 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." Consent Agreement, ¶3 and ¶4. Before applying the Stipulated Facts to the provisions of the Ethics Act, it appears from our review of the allegations and Consent Agreement that the Investigative Division through the exercise of prosecutorial discretion has elected to non -pros the allegations concerning the use of the Borough equipment and supplies for personal use and the purchase of a Borough ladder and its use for private business activities. Concomitantly, we note that the parties, through agreement, have added an SFI allegation concerning Dave Stanley Consultants. As to the allegation concerning Volansky contracting with the Borough through a third party, we note from the Stipulated Findings that there was one instance in August of 1999 when Volansky himself, through Home Care Services, bid on a Borough project. However, when a question of conflict was raised, Volansky withdrew his bid and did not complete the project. As to all other relevant projects with the Borough, the Stipulated Findings reflect that several Borough projects were awarded to Frank Boord. Volansky assisted Boord in preparing the proposals and, in some instances, actually worked on the projects. Volansky participated in the process of approving the Accounts Payable list that included bills from Boord that were due and owing as to the various Borough projects. Volansky voted to approve the Accounts Payable and also co- signed Borough checks or did so via facsimile stamp. Such actions were uses of authority of office. See, Juliante, Order 809. There were private pecuniary benefits consisting of the Borough payments for the labor performed on the projects. In this regard, Volansky in some instances assisted Boord on the Borough projects. Hence, part of the private pecuniary benefits that were paid to Boord were then received by Volansky for performing work as to the Borough projects. Accordingly, Volansky unintentionally violated §1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he assisted Frank Boord as to Borough construction projects, participated in the payment approval process for those projects, and received a financial gain for work he performed on the projects. See, Luzier, Order 1300. As to the §1103(f) allegation, that provision of the Ethics Law provides in part that a public official may contract with his governmental body but if the contract is $500 or more, it must be awarded through an open and public process. In the Stipulated Findings of this case, we only have one instance where Volansky submitted a bid for a Borough project and received the contract. However, when issues were raised that Volansky had a conflict of interest, he withdrew his bid. The other contracts detailed in the record were between the Borough and Frank Boord. Further, our review of the record does not establish that Frank Boord was a straw or third party as to Volansky. Accordingly, Volansky did not violate §1103(f) of the Ethics Act regarding specified Borough contracts in that the contracts were between the Borough and Frank Boord and not Volansky. See, Robinson, Order 1009; O'Donnell, Order 1044. The last allegation before us concerns filing deficiencies by Volansky as to the SFIs that he filed for calendar years 2002 and 2003. The Stipulated Findings reflect that Volansky failed to report Home Care Services as a source of income on his calendar year 2002 SFI. In addition, Volansky failed to report Dave Stanley Consultants as a source of income in excess of $1,300 as well as a business in which he was an employee on his 2003 calendar year SFI. Accordingly, Volansky technically violated §1105(b)(5) of the Ethics Act when he failed to disclose his business, Home Care Services, as a source of income on his 2002 calendar year SFI. In addition, Volansky technically violated Volansky, 04 -050 Page 14 §1105(b)(5) and §1105(b)(8) of the Ethics Act when he failed to disclose Dave Stanley Consultants as a source of income and as a business by which he was employed on his 2003 calendar year SFI. See, Hoover, Order 1348. 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, Volansky is directed to make payment of $1,000 through this Commission to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania within thirty days of the mailing date of this Order. If Volansky has not already done so, he is directed to file amended SFIs for calendar years 2002 and 2003 within 30 days of the date of the mailing of this Order making a full, complete and accurate disclosure of his financial interests, including but not limited to the deficiencies noted above, with the originals filed with the Borough and copies filed with this Commission for compliance verification purposes. 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. Joseph Volansky, as Councilman of Masontown Borough, is a public official subject to the provisions of Act 9 of 1989 as codified by Act 93 of 1998. 2. Volansky unintentionally violated §1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he assisted Frank Boord as to Borough construction projects, participated in the payment approval process for those projects, and received a financial gain for work he performed on the projects. 3. Volansky did not violate §1103(f) of the Ethics Act regarding specified Borough contracts in that the contracts were between the Borough and Frank Boord and not Volansky 4. Volansky technically violated §1105(b)(5) of the Ethics Act when he failed to disclose his business, Home Care Services, as a source of income on his 2002 calendar year Statement of Financial Interests (SFI). 5. Volansky technically violated §1105(b)(5) and §1105(b)(8) of the Ethics Act when he failed to disclose Dave Stanley Consultants as a source of income and as a business by which he was employed on his 2003 calendar year SFI. In Re: Joseph Volansky ORDER NO. 1392 -R File Docket: 04 -050 Date Decided: 5/31/06 Date Mailed: 6/12/06 1 Joseph Volansky, as Councilman of Masontown Borough, unintentionally violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act in relation to his business relationship with Frank Boord regarding minor construction projects for Masontown Borough. 2. Volansky did not violate §1103(f) of the Ethics Act regarding specified Borough contracts in that the contracts were between the Borough and Frank Boord and not Volansky. 3. Volansky technically violated §1105(b)(5) of the Ethics Act when he failed to disclose his business, Home Care Services, as a source of income on his 2002 calendar year Statement of Financial Interests (SFI). 4. Volansky technically violated §1105(b)(5) and §1105(b)(8) of the Ethics Act when he failed to disclose Dave Stanley Consultants as a source of income and as a business by which he was employed on his 2003 calendar year SFI. 5. Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Volansky is directed to make payment of $1,000 through this Commission to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania within thirty days of the mailing date of this Order. If Volansky has not already done so, he is directed to file amended SFIs for calendar years 2002 and 2003 within 30 days of the date of the mailing of this Order making a full, complete and accurate disclosure of his financial interests, including but not limited to the deficiencies noted above with originals filed with the Borough and copies filed with this Commission for compliance verification purposes. 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