HomeMy WebLinkAbout1403 Nagele, Jr.In Re: Ray Nagele, Jr.
Respondent
File Docket: 05 -037
X -ref: Order No. 1403
Date Decided: 6/23/06
Date Mailed: 6/30/06
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 not filed and a hearing was waived. The record is complete.
Effective December 15, 1998, Act 9 of 1989 was repealed and replaced by Chapter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.
Nagele, 05 -037
Page 2
I. ALLEGATION:
That Ray Nagele, Jr., a (public official /public employee) in his capacity as a
Supervisor of Overton Township, Bradford County violated Sections 1103(a), 1104(a) and
1104(d) of the State Ethics Act (Act 93 of 1998) when he used the authority of his office for
private pecuniary gain, including but not limited to claiming and accepting compensation
as a township roadmaster in excess of that approved by the township auditors and when
he participated in actions of the Board of Supervisors to approve payments to himself;
when he failed to file a Statement of Financial Interests for the 2002 calendar year by May
1, 2003; when he subsequently backdated a SFI for the 2002 calendar year giving the
appearance that the form was timely filed; and when he participated in discussions and
actions of the board of supervisors; including but not limited to, voting to approve
payments, expenses, including attorney fees, for a personal legal matter.
II. FINDINGS:
1. The Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission received a signed, sworn
complaint alleging that Ray Nagele, Jr. violated provisions of the State Ethics Act
(Act 93 of 1998).
2. Upon review of the complaint the Investigative Division initiated a preliminary
inquiry on September 29, 2005.
3. The preliminary inquiry was completed within sixty days.
4. On November 21, 2005, a letter was forwarded to Ray Nagele, Jr., by the
Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission informing him that a complaint
against him was received by the Investigative Division and that a full investigation
was being commenced.
a. Said letter was forwarded by certified mail, no. 7004 0750 0002 8074 7698.
b. The domestic return receipt bore the signature of Raymond C. Nagele, Jr.,
with a delivery date of November 23, 2005.
5. On April 28, 2006, an amended Notice of Investigation was forwarded to Raymond
C. Nagele, Jr., by the Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission
informing him that the allegations contained in the November 21, 2005, Notice of
Investigation were being amended.
a. Said letter was forwarded by certified mail, no. 7004 2890 0004 1229 2776.
b. The domestic return receipt bore the signature of Kathy Quail, with a delivery
date of May 1, 2006.
6. Periodic notice letters were forwarded to Ray Nagele, Jr. in accordance with the
provisions of the Ethics Law advising him of the general status of the investigation.
7 The Investigative Complaint was mailed to the Respondent on May 5, 2005.
8. Raymond C. Nagele, Jr. has served as a supervisor for Overton Township, Bradford
County since January 2002.
a. Nagele has served as the chairman of the Townships Board of Supervisors
since January 2004.
Nagele, 05 -037
Page 3
b. Nagele also serves as the township's treasurer, roadmaster, and laborer.
1. Nagele has served as township roadmaster since 2004.
9. Overton Township is a second class township with a three member board of
supervisors.
10. During 2004, all three members of the Overton Township Board of Supervisors
were employed by the township road department.
a. The township's road crew consists only of the three supervisors.
11. Typical job duties for the township's road crew include, but may not be limited to the
following:
a. Repairing township roads.
b. Maintenance of township equipment.
c. Cutting and removing brush and debris.
d. Plowing snow from township roads.
12. All compensation received by the supervisors employed by the township is set
annually by the Overton Township Board of Auditors.
a. The board of auditors consists of three elected township residents.
b. The setting of compensation by the auditors is consistent with Section
65606(a) 53 P.S. 65606 of the Second Class Township Code relating to
compensation of working supervisors and reads in part:
The compensation of supervisors, when employed as
roadmasters, labormen, secretary, treasurer... or in any
employee capacity... shall be determined by the board of
auditors, at an hourly, daily, weekly, semi - monthly or monthly
basis."
c. Overton Township working supervisors are compensated at an hourly rate.
13. On or around the first of each year the board of auditors hold their annual meeting
to decide the hourly rate and benefits that will be paid to the board of supervisors.
a. Hourly rates are motioned and approved for each working supervisor.
b. The hourly rates and benefits are recorded by the secretary of the auditors in
the meeting minutes.
14. At the board of auditors annual meeting on January 6, 2004, the working
supervisors hourly rate for 2004 was set.
a. Ray Nagele 8.90 /hr
b. Joe Hoover 7.50 /hr
c. Gene Carner 12.00 /hr
Nagele, 05 -037
Page 4
15. The Overton Township Board of Supervisors hold one public meeting per month,
which schedule is set during the annual reorganization meeting.
16. Minutes from the Overton Township Board of Supervisors meeting reflect the
following type of activities that typically occur during a meeting.
a. The attendance of supervisors, township officials and guests are recorded.
b. The prior month's meeting minutes are read and approved.
c. The monthly treasurer's report is read and approved.
d. Township activities are discussed.
e. Public comment is heard.
17. During a supervisors meeting on February 4, 2004, Supervisors Nagele and Hoover
voiced their disapproval of the hourly rate set by the auditors on January 6, 2004.
a. Nagele solicited the support of his friends to attend and show their
disapproval of the rate set.
b. Meeting minutes indicate that "Sid and Dave Hatch, Leo and Barry Young,
Ronald Bahl, Bill Dumfee, and Don Robe attended the meeting as they did
not agree with the wages set by the auditors."
18. The supervisors scheduled a joint meeting to be held with the township auditors
during the supervisors' meeting on March 3, 2004, to agree on a new hourly wage
for working supervisors.
19. The March 10, 2004 special meeting was held with all three supervisors and
auditors Katherine Chase and Betty Bahl in attendance.
a. Auditors minutes and supervisors minutes indicate auditor Shirley Bird was
not in attendance.
20. Overton Township Board of Auditors minutes from March 10, 2004 set the monthly
rate for the working supervisors as follows:
Ray Nagele, Jr.
Joe Hoover
Gene Carner
$11.00 /hr
$10.00 /hr
$12.50/hr
a. The minutes from the meeting contains [sic] the signatures of both auditors
in attendance (Chase and Bahl).
21. During the special meeting on March 10, 2004, auditors Chase and Bahl agreed
upon the hourly rates and recorded them on a note card.
a. Auditor Chase read the amounts decided by the auditors, from the note card
to those in attendance.
22. Township Secretary Doris Dibble recorded the amounts to be paid to Hoover and
Nagele in the supervisors' minutes for the March 10, 2004 meeting at $1.00 /hour
more than approved by the auditors on March 10, 2004 as shown below:
Ray Nagele 12.00 /hr
Nagele, 05 -037
Page 5
Joe Hoover 11.00 /hr
Gene Carner 12.50/hr
23. Township Secretary Dibble's minutes from March 10, 2004, indicate that the
amounts be paid retroactively to January 1, 2004.
a. The board of auditor minutes from March 10, 2004, do not include the
retroactive wording.
24. During the board of supervisors meeting held on April 7, 2004, Dibble read the
meeting minutes from the special meeting on March 10, 2004 for the supervisor's
approval.
a. Dibble read the wages decided during the meeting as follows:
Ray Nagele 12.00 /hr
Joe Hoover 11.00 /hr
Gene Carner 12.50/hr
b. Meeting minutes from April 7, 2004 show a unanimous vote for the approval
of the prior months minutes.
1. The minutes and treasurers report was read and approved with Ray
Nagele making the motion and Gene Carner 2 nd it."
25. Auditor Chase voiced hgr concern with the reading of the improper amounts during
the Supervisors April 7 meeting.
a. Auditor Chase was informed by Nagele that the discrepancy would be "taken
care of ".
b. Auditor Chases concerns were not recorded in the minutes.
26. Overton Township Board of Supervisors minutes do not reflect any action being
taken by Supervisors Nagele or Hoover to correct the wage discrepancy.
a. Supervisors Hoover and Nagele collected the higher wages throughout 2004.
b. Each received a dollar an hour higher than was set by the auditors.
27. During the auditors annual meeting on January 4, 2005, the auditors learned,
through a review of the prior years minutes, that the wage discrepancy was not
corrected.
a. "Auditors minutes were read along with the secretary's minutes. Katherine
Chase noted a discrepancy in wages for Ray Nagele, Jr. and Joe Hoover,
auditors had set wages at special meeting on March 10, 2004: Ray Nagele
Jr. $11.00 per hour, Joe Hoover at $10.00 per hour. The secretary minutes
had Ray Nagele Jr. at $12.00 an hour and Joe Hoover at $11.00 per hour."
28. A subsequent review of the payroll reports, account ledgers, and checks by the
board of auditors determined that Nagele and Hoover received $1.00 per hour pay
in excess of the hourly wage set by the auditors for every hour worked during 2004.
29. A special meeting was held by the board of supervisors on January 31, 2005 to
correct the wage dispute.
Nagele, 05 -037
Page 6
a. The board of supervisors meeting minutes indicate that no action was taken
by the board of auditors.
b. Supervisors Nagele and Hoover indicated that they would contact PSATS for
how to correct the wage dispute.
30. Township records do not include any information from PSATS on the wage issue.
a. Hoover and Nagele do not know who they spoke with at PSATS.
31. Meeting minutes from a board of supervisor's meeting on February 2, 2005 indicate
that the auditors were never contacted by PSATS on how to resolve the wage
dispute.
32. The board of auditors met on March 7, 2005 and set the working supervisor's
wages for 2005 as follows:
Ray Nagele, Jr.
Joe Hoover
Gene Carner
12.00 /hr
11.00 /hr
12.50/hr
33. The board of auditors approved the supervisors wages for 2005 at the same rates
Hoover and Nagele received during calendar year 2004.
a. The auditors made this decision in an effort to resolve the salary dispute with
the supervisors.
34. On or around March 15, 2005, the board of auditors completed the calendar year
2004 audit of township books.
a. The annual audit and financial report for calendar year 2004 for Overton
Township that was submitted to the Commonwealth did not reflect the wage
discrepancy.
35. Attached to and submitted with the annual audit and financial report was a sworn
acknowledgement from Auditor Chase indicating her refusal to sign the audit due to
the failure to list the $1.00 per hour received by the supervisors in excess of what
was set by the board of auditors.
a. "I, Katherine Chase, Secretary of the Overton Township Auditors, in good
conscience cannot sign the 2004 audit for the above said township for the
following reasons:
1. Two of the working supervisors were receiving one dollar per hour
more than set rate for the year 2004, while knowing there was a
discrepancy since April 7, 2004."
36. On or around March 22, 2005, the Department of Auditor General completed a
liquid fuels tax fund audit report for Overton Township for a three year period
ending December 31, 2004.
a. The audit cited instances of non - compliance including "Township
Supervisors paid wages in excess of amount approved by Board of
Auditors."
Our audit revealed that during 2004 two township supervisors were paid
wages totaling $3,993.50 in excess of the amount approved by the Board of
Nagele, 05 -037
Page 7
Auditors.
According to the minutes of the township supervisors' meeting on March 10,
2002, one of the supervisors was to be paid $12.00 per hour and the other
was to be paid $11.00 per hour. We further noted that according to the
minutes from the auditors' meeting on March 10, 2004, these same
supervisors were awarded wages of $11.00 per hour and $10.00 per hour
respectively. Therefore, each supervisor was paid one dollar an hour more
than what was approved by the Board of Auditors. The first supervisor
worked 1,941.5 hours during 2004 and therefore was overpaid by $1,941.50.
The second supervisor worked 2,052 hours during 2004 and was therefore
overpaid by $2,052.00"
b. The audit included the supervisors response to the state issue.
The township supervisors stated:
To address the wage problem it was a clear misunderstanding
between the auditor's book and the township book. This matter was
resolved at one point. Those wages of $11.00 and $12.00 were
correct to the best of our knowledge. At this years auditors' meeting
two certain auditors wanted to start a problem again. We the
supervisors quickly addressed the situation at a special meeting.
One of the auditors showed up with her resignation knowing there
would be problems for what she was doing. The problem was
discussed and all parties agreed that the $11.00 and $12.00 would
remain, all parties signed the township minute book. At this time we
assumed this problem was resolved. We then appointed a new
auditor, hoping to get everything back on track. Then again the
trouble returns from the auditor who was causing problems. It seems
we have a problem with only one auditor who apparently is trying to
make this a personal vendetta against two of the supervisors."
c. The state auditor's concluded in the audit that the wages paid in excess
were not in compliance because they were not approved by the auditors.
"There appears to be a disagreement between the township supervisors and
the township auditors regarding the appropriate wage to be paid to the
supervisors. This not withstanding, the two township supervisors were paid
wages totaling $3,993.50 in excess of the amount approved by the Board of
Auditors. Accordingly, the findings remains as stated."
37. Working supervisors' hours are recorded on PennDOT's municipal semi - monthly
payroll report from and are maintained by Secretary Dibble.
a. Payroll reports record the number of hours worked on a daily basis, and a
description of the work completed.
b. Payroll reports record semi - monthly totals, the hourly rate of pay and the
gross amount paid for the month to the employee.
c. Payroll reports for working supervisors are approved on a monthly basis.
d. Reports are signed by all three supervisors.
38. Supervisors Nagele and Hoover signed all payroll reports during 2004, except for
the month of October 2004.
Nagele, 05 -037
Page 8
a. Payroll reports for 2004 show the hourly wage of Nagele at $12.00 and Joe
Hoover at $11.00.
39. Payroll reports indicate the following hours per month worked by Supervisor Nagele
during 2004.
Nagele, Ray
Month
Jan -04
Feb -04
Mar -04
Apr -04
May -04
Jun -04
Jul -04
Aug -04
Sep -04
Oct -04
Nov -04
Dec -04
Total Hours
Hours
Claimed
156.5
137.5
137.5
120
132
177
176
176
193
176
176
184
1941.5
40. Employee payroll checks are filled out by the township secretary on the day of a
board of supervisors' meeting.
a. Working supervisors' wages are paid from the township's state fund account.
41. Nagele as Overton Township Treasurer is responsible for endorsing all of the
checks, along with one of the two remaining supervisors.
42. During 2004, fourteen checks were issued to supervisor Nagele for wages earned
as a working supervisor. Checks were issued as follows:
Ray Nagele
Date
2/4/2004
3/3/2004
4/7/2004
4/7/2004
4/7/2004
5/5/2004
6/2/2004
7/7/2004
8/4/2004
9/1/2004
10/6/2004
11/3/2004
Amount
$ 1,158.58
$ 1,025.32
$ 428.26
$ 370.08
$ 1,357.59
$ 1,196.22
$ 1,307.33
$ 1,714.04
$ 1,709.44
$ 1,709.44
$ 1,857.45
$ 1,707.56
Pay Rate ( /hr)
$ 12.00
$ 12.00
$ 12.00
$ 12.00
$ 12.00
$ 12.00
$ 12.00
$ 12.00
$ 12.00
$ 12.00
$ 12.00
$ 12.00
Endorsed
Nagele, Hoover
Nagele, Hoover
Nagele, Hoover
Nagele, Hoover
Nagele, Hoover
Nagele, Hoover
Nagele, Hoover
Nagele, Hoover
Nagele, Hoover
Nagele, Hoover
Nagele, Hoover
Nagele, Hoover
Check #
2302
1005
1017
1020
1027
1040
1050
1065
1078
1089
1094
1109
Nagele, 05 -037
Page 9
12/1/2004 $ 1,707.56 Nagele, Hoover 1120
12/22/2004 $ 1,774.22 Nagele, Hoover 1131
$19,023.09 Total
43. Township check numbers 1017 and 1020 in the amounts of $428.26 and $370.08
were issued to Nagele as retroactive pay from January and February 2004.
a. The amounts are the difference in pay from the wages $8.90 to $12.00 for
Nagele.
44. Nagele and Hoover in their official capacity as supervisors, endorsed every check
issued to the two of them for wages earned as working supervisors during 2004.
a. These checks were based on the hourly wages of Nagele, $12.00 and
Hoover $11.00 respectively.
45. Monthly treasurer's reports are read and approved by the supervisors during their
regular monthly meetings.
a. The treasurer's report's are recorded as part of the monthly minutes.
b. The treasurer's report includes a listing of all expenses, which includes
wages paid to working supervisors for labor.
46. Nagele and Hoover, in their official capacity as supervisors, routinely voted to
approve the treasurer's reports during monthly meetings, throughout 2004.
a. Meeting minutes reflect the approval of the treasurers reports, including
wages paid to Nagele and Hoover.
b. Meeting minutes were reviewed, read, and approved without correction by
supervisors Nagele and Hoover throughout 2004.
47. The one dollar per hour wage in excess of the rate approved by the auditors
received by Nagele throughout calendar year 2004 resulted, in a personal financial
gain of $1,941.50.
a. Financial gain based on $1.00 X 1,941.50 hours = $1,941.50.
48. During the Supervisors April 6, 2005 meeting a verbal confrontation occurred
between Supervisor Nagele and Auditor Katherine Chase.
a. The confrontation related to Chase's failure to sign the completed audit
report for calendar year 2004.
b. Supervisor Nagele threatened to withhold Chase's payment for hours
associated with completion of the audit report, based on her refusal to sign
it.
49. Minutes from the supervisors April 6, 2005 meeting include comments from Paul
Jayne, a township resident, requesting Nagele to go outside to discuss the matter
further.
a. Nagele informed Jayne that if we go outside, I'm going to rip your fxxxing
head off ".
Nagele, 05 -037
Page 10
b. As a result of Nagele's comments the Pennsylvania State Police were
contacted.
50. After the supervisors April 6, 2005 meeting, PA State Police Trooper Craig Venesky
interviewed Paul Jayne, Kathy Chase, and Ray Nagele.
a. As a result of the interviews Ray Nagele was taken into custody and charged
with simple assault, terroristic threats, and harassment.
b. Nagele was arraigned that same night before DJ Timothy Clark and posted
bail.
51. Nagele's bail was set at $1,000 of which he personally paid $150.00.
a. Nagele's $150.00 payment was reimbursed to him by way of Township
Check Number 1212 dated May 4, 2005 in the amount of $250.00.
b. The additional $100.00 was reimbursement for the retainer Nagele paid to
Attorney Rinaldo DePaola for Nagele's defense.
c. This check contained the signatures of Nagele and Hoover and was
approved by the board of supervisors on May 4, 2005 with Nagele
participating.
52. On April 28, 2005 Attorney DePaola invoiced Nagele personally in the amount of
$400.00 for legal services provided.
a. DePaola's invoice was for the following services:
Initial consultation on April 12, 2005; legal research, preparation for the
attendance at scheduled preliminary hearing on April 27, 2005.
b. DePaola's invoice included a $100.00 credit for a retainer previously paid by
Nagele.
53. DePaola's April 28, 2005 invoice was submitted by Nagele to the township for
payment.
a. Township check number 1213 dated May 4, 2005 in the amount of $400.00
was issued to DePaola.
b. Nagele and Hoover signed the check, which was approved by the board for
payment, on May 4, 2005 with Nagele's participation.
54. A preliminary hearing for the charges against Nagele was scheduled to be held at
DJ Clark's office on April 27, 2005.
a. District Attorney Downs interviewed witnesses for Nagele in the parking lot
prior to the hearing.
b. Based on the interviews conducted by Downs, he withdrew the charges
without prejudice with a continuing investigation into the matter.
c. Charges were withdrawn and a preliminary hearing was not held.
55. On July 12, 2005, Pennsylvania State Police Trooper James Kerrich filed a
summary non - traffic citation in District Court against Nagele for harassment.
Nagele, 05 -037
Page 11
a. The charge stemmed from a series of actions by Nagele against Auditor
Chase during township meetings.
56. Nagele was found not guilty" on the charge of harassment during a summary
hearing before DJ Clark on September 6, 2005.
a. The disposition in the matter resulted in the case being closed.
57. On September 12, 2005, Attorney DePaola invoiced Nagele personally in the
amount of $300.00 for legal services provided.
a. DePaola's invoice was for the following services: review of paperwork,
telephone calls with Nagele and DJ Clark, attendance at hearing, and other
miscellaneous services rendered to date.
58. DePaola's September 12, 2005 invoice was submitted by Nagele to the township for
payment.
a. Township Check Number 1279 dated October 5, 2005 in the amount of
$300.00 was issued to DePaola.
b. Nagele and Hoover signed this check, which was approved by the board for
payment, on October 5, 2005 with Nagele's participation.
59. Nagele received a private pecuniary gain as a result of his actions as a township
supervisor by submitting and participating in actions of the board to reimburse him
for bail fees and to pay his attorney fees for a personal legal matter relating to
criminal charges.
a. Bail $150.00
b. Legal Fees $800.00
Total: $950.00
THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS RELATE TO THE ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING
NAGELE FAILING TO FILE STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL INTERESTS.
60. As supervisor for Overton Township, Nagele was required annually to file a
Statement of Financial Interests form by the May 1 deadline, containing information
for the prior calendar year.
61. Statements of Financial Interests forms on file with Overton Township include the
following filings by Nagele:
a. Calendar Year: 2000
Filed: 06/28/01 on SEC form 01/01
Occupation: Self employed, Livestock Hauler
Direct /Indirect Income: Self employed, Nagele Livestock Hauling, RR2 Box
52, New Albany, PA 18833
All other Financial Interests: Owner operator for self employed business.
b. Calendar Year: 2001
Filed: 01/14/02 on SEC form 01/02
Occupation: Self employed
All other Financial Interests: None
Nagele, 05 -037
Page 12
c. Calendar Year 2002 — No form on file.
d. Calendar Year 2003
Filed: 01/20/04 on SEC form 01/04
Position: Supervisor
Creditors: None
Direct /Indirect Income: Overton Township, Nagele's Livestock Hauling
All other Financial Interests: None
e. Calendar Year: 2004
Filed: 01/05/05 on SEC form 01/05
Position: Supervisor
Occupation: Laborer
Direct /Indirect Income: Overton Township
All other Financial Interests: None
62. Nagele failed to file a Statement of Financial Interests form with the township for
calendar year 2002 by May 1, 2003.
63. Nagele did not disclose his financial interest in Nagele Livestock Hauling on SFI's
filed for the 2000, 2001, 2003, and 2005 calendar years.
a. Nagele did not list his income from Nagele Livestock Hauling on his SFI filed
for the 2004 calendar year.
64 Nagele was interviewed by Investigators from the State Ethics Commission on April
20, 2006.
a. During the interview, Nagele's failure to file SFI's for calendar years 2002
and 2003 was discussed.
b. Nagele indicated that he would attempt to locate the SFI for the 2002
calendar year.
65. Nagele stated, during a phone conversation with SEC Investigators on April 21,
2006, that he has "found" his calendar year 2002 and 2003 SFI's among township
records.
66. On April 21, 2006 at 12:58 p.m., Nagele faxed SFI's for calendar years 2002 and
2003 to the State Ethics Commission. Nagele's SFI's included the following
information:
a. Calendar Year: 2002
Filed: 01/10/03 on SEC form 01/06
Position: Supervisor
Creditors: None
Direct /Indirect Income: Nageles Livestock Hauling
All other Financial Interests: None
b. Calendar Year: 2003
Filed: 01/20/04 on SEC form 01/04
Position: Supervisor
Creditors: None
Direct /Indirect Income: Overton Township, Nageles Livestock Hauling
All other Financial Interests: None
67. The Statement of Financial Interests filed by Nagele for the 2002 calendar year was
Nagele, 05 -037
Page 13
filed on a form with a revision date SEC -1 Rev. 01/06.
68. Form SEC -1 Rev. 01/06 was not available to municipalities for completion in
January 2003.
69. Nagele's SFI submitted to the State Ethics Commission on April 21, 2006 for
calendar year 2002 was backdated to create the impression of a timely filing.
a. SFIs with a revision date of SEC -1 REV. 01/06 were not received by the
Administrative Division of the State Ethics Commission until December2005.
b. Those forms were not distributed to municipalities until December 2005.
c. Nagele attempted to deceive SEC Investigators by backdating his form and
then advising them that he had "found" the missing form.
70. In 2002, the year he failed to file a SFI, Nagele received supervisor's wages totaling
$989.50.
71. Nagele realized a private pecuniary gain of $1,941.50 as a result of the use of the
authority of his public position as Overton Township Supervisor to obtain
compensation not approved by the auditors and when he submitted and voted to
pay bills related to private legal work and expenses.
a. Nagele received a private pecuniary gain of $1,941.50 as a result of
approving compensation in excess of the auditor approval.
b. Nagele submitted and voted to pay /reimburse legal expenses totaling
$950.00.
c. Private pecuniary gain totaled $2,891.50.
III. DISCUSSION:
At all times relevant to this matter, the Respondent, Ray Nagele, Jr. (Nagele), 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 Nagele, as an Overton Township Supervisor, violated
Sections 1103(a), 1104(a) and 1104(d) of the Ethics Act when he used the authority of his
office for private pecuniary gain by claiming and accepting compensation as a township
roadmaster in excess of that approved by the township auditors and by participating in
actions of the Board of Supervisors to approve payments to himself; when he failed to file a
Statement of Financial Interests (SFI) for the 2002 calendar year by May 1, 2003; when he
subsequently backdated an SFI for the 2002 calendar year giving the appearance that the
form was timely filed; and when he participated in discussions and actions of the Board of
Supervisors to approve attorney's fees and bail for personal legal matters.
Pursuant to Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act quoted above, 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
Nagele, 05 -037
Page 14
"Conflict" or "conflict of interest." Use by a public
official or public employee of the authority of his office or
employment or any confidential information received through
his holding public office or employment for the private
pecuniary benefit of himself, a member of his immediate family
or a business with which he or a member of his immediate
family is associated. "Conflict" or "conflict of interest" does not
include an action having a de minimis economic impact or
which affects to the same degree a class consisting of the
general public or a subclass consisting of an industry,
occupation or other group which includes the public official or
public employee, a member of his immediate family or a
business with which he or a member of his immediate family is
associated.
65 Pa.C.S. § 1102.
Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act prohibits a public official /public employee from
using the authority of public office /employment or confidential information received by
holding such a public position for the private pecuniary benefit of the public official /public
employee himself, any member of his immediate family, or a business with which he or a
member of his immediate family is associated.
Section 1104. Statement of financial interests required to be filed
(a) Each public official of the Commonwealth shall file a
statement of financial interests for the preceding calendar year
with the commission no later than May 1 of each year that he
holds such a position and of the year after he leaves such a
position. Each public employee and public official of the
Commonwealth shall file a statement of financial interests for
the preceding calendar year with the department, agency,
body or bureau in which he is employed or to which he is
appointed or elected no later than May 1 of each year that he
holds such a position and of the year after he leaves such a
position. Any other public employee or public official shall file a
statement of financial interests with the governing authority of
the political subdivision by which he is employed or within
which he is appointed or elected no later than May 1 of each
year that he holds such a position and of the year after he
leaves such a position. 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).
Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Law quoted above 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.
Section 1104(d) of the Ethics Law provides:
Section 1104. Statement of financial interests required to be
filed.
Nagele, 05 -037
Page 15
facts.
(d) No public official shall be allowed to take the
oath of office or enter or continue upon his duties, nor shall he
receive compensation from public funds, unless he has filed a
statement of financial interests as required by this act.
65 Pa.C.S. §1104(d).
Having noted the issues and applicable law, we shall now summarize the relevant
Nagele has served as an Overton Township Supervisor in Bradford County since
January 2002. The Board of Supervisors consists of three members with Hoover serving
as Vice Chairman and Nagele as Chairman since January of 2004. All three supervisors
were employed in 2004 by the Township Road Department that solely consists of those
three individuals. The road crew typically repairs township roads, maintains township
equipment, cuts and removes brush and debris, and plows snow from the township roads.
The compensation for the supervisors as township employees is set by the
Township Board of Auditors. The Board of Auditors usually meets in early January of each
year to set the hourly rate and benefits that will be paid to the supervisors as working
employees. For the calendar year 2004, the Board of Auditors set the hourly rate of
compensation for Nagele at $8.90 and for Hoover at $7.50.
During a Board of Supervisors Meeting in February 2004, Nagele and Hoover
expressed disapproval at the hourly rate set by the auditors in January. The supervisors
then scheduled a joint meeting with the auditors for March 3, 2004 for the purpose of
setting a new hourly wage rate for the working supervisors. At a March 10, 2004 special
meeting held among the three supervisors and two of the three auditors, the auditors set
the hourly rate for Nagele at $11.00 and for Hoover at $10.00. The minutes of that
meeting contain the signatures of two auditors, one of whom read the hourly rates from a
note card.
However, the Township Secretary recorded the amounts at $1.00 per hour higher,
that is, $12.00 for Nagele and $11.00 for Hoover. Those minutes further indicate that the
amounts were to be paid retroactively to January 1, 2004 despite the fact that the minutes
of the Board of Auditors did not reflect any provision for retroactive application. The
minutes for the meeting of the Board of Supervisors were unanimously approved at a
subsequent meeting in April 2004. After Auditor Chase raised the issue that the hourly
rates for Nagele and Hoover were incorrect, Nagele responded that the discrepancy would
be "taken care of ". Fact Finding 25. However, neither Nagele nor Hoover corrected the
wage discrepancy and continued to collect wages at the higher unauthorized rate
throughout 2004.
At the annual meeting of the Board of Auditors on January 4, 2005, they learned
from a review of the Board of Supervisors minutes that the wage discrepancy was not
corrected. A review of the payroll reports revealed that Nagele and Hoover received
$1.00 per hour pay more than approved by the auditors. At a special meeting of the Board
of Supervisors on January 31, 2005, the matter of correcting the wages was raised with no
action being taken. During the year 2004, Nagele and Hoover signed all payroll reports,
except for the month of October, with the payroll reports reflecting the hourly wage for
Nagele at $12.00 and for Hoover at $11.00.
At a meeting of the Board of Auditors in March 2005, the supervisors' wages were
set for Nagele at $12.00 per hour and Hoover at $11.00 per hour. The Board of Auditors
approved the wages for Hoover and Nagele in 2005 to be the same as they actually
received in 2004. After the Board of Auditors completed the calendar year 2004 audit of
the Township books, Auditor Chase refused to sign the audit due to the omission of a
statement that the supervisors received $1.00 per hour in excess of that which had been
Nagele, 05 -037
Page 16
set by the Board of Auditors.
In March of 2005, the Department of Auditor General performed a liquid fuel tax
fund audit in the township for a three year period and noted that two Township Supervisors
received wages in excess of the rate approved by the Board of Auditors. It was
determined that in 2004, Nagele and Hoover received $3,993.50 in excess wages.
The Township Supervisors responded to the Auditor General's finding by stating the
wage problem was a misunderstanding that was resolved at one point. The Auditor
General concluded that the wages paid were in excess of that which had been approved
by the Board of Auditors.
During 2004, 14 checks totaling $19,023.09 were issued to Nagele for wages
earned as a working supervisor. Two checks issued to Nagele in that period included
retroactive pay for January and February of 2004. Nagele and Hoover, in their official
capacities, endorsed every check issued to them for wages earned as working supervisors
in 2004. Nagele and Hoover also routinely voted to approve Treasurer reports in 2004 that
included wages paid to them. The $1.00 per hour excess wage that was not approved by
the Board of Auditors totaled $1,941.50 for Nagele in 2004.
During an April 6, 2005 meeting of the Board of Supervisors, a verbal altercation
occurred between Nagele and Auditor Chase as to her failure to sign the completed audit
report for the 2004 calendar year. Nagele threatened to withhold Chase's payment for
hours associated with completing the report. Separate and apart from the above, a
Township resident made comments and suggested that he and Nagele could discuss the
matter further. Nagele responded with a threatening and vulgar statement to the resident.
See, Fact Finding 49. As a consequence, Nagele was charged, taken into custody and
arraigned before a District Justice. Nagele retained private counsel who billed Nagele in
the amount of $400 for the legal services in preparation of Nagele's preliminary hearing.
Nagele subsequently submitted the invoice to the Township for payment. The Board of
Supervisors, with Nagele's participation, approved the payment and then Nagele and
Hoover co- endorsed the check to the attorney.
Several months later, a Pennsylvania State Trooper filed a Summary Non - Traffic
Citation against Nagele for harassment. Once again, Nagele retained the services of the
same attorney who issued a bill in the amount of $300 for legal services to Nagele.
Nagele submitted that bill to the Township that was approved by the Board of Supervisors
with Nagele's participation. Further, Nagele and Hoover co- endorsed the township check
that was issued in payment to the attorney. In that the Township paid for Nagele's bail in
the amount of $150, the total pecuniary benefit that Nagele received relating to legal
expenses of a personal nature amounted to $950, that is, $800 for legal services and $150
for bail.
Turning to the matter of SFIs that Nagele is required to file as a Township
Supervisor, he failed to file his calendar year 2002 SFI by May 1, 2003. In addition,
Nagele did not disclose his financial interest in Nagele Livestock Hauling for the SFIs filed
for calendar years 2000, 2001, 2003 and 2005. Nagele did not list his income from Nagele
Livestock Hauling on his 2004 calendar year SFI.
When Nagele was interviewed by an investigator of this Commission regarding his
failure to file SFIs for the calendar years 2002 and 2003, Nagele responded in a
subsequent telephone conversation that he had "found" the 2002 and 2003 SFIs among
Township records. See, Fact Findings 65, 69. Nagele faxed the two forms to this
Commission. However, the purported filing for the 2002 calendar year was on an SFI form
with a revision date, SEC -1 REV.01 /06. In that the form did not exist at the time of the
purported filing by Nagele, the form was backdated so as to give the impression of a timely
filing.
Nagele, 05 -037
Page 17
Having summarized the above relevant facts, we must now determine whether the
actions of Nagele violated Sections 1103(a), 1104(a) and 1104(d) of the Ethics Act.
Initially, we must consider a procedural issue that has arisen regarding the failure
to timely file an Answer to the Investigative Complaint. The pleading stage in this case
began with the issuance of the Investigative Complaint on May 5, 2006. On its face, the
Investigative Complaint stated that an Answer had to be received at this Commission
within thirty (30) days of issuance and that the Respondent should take that document
immediately to an attorney. No Answer was received by the June 5, 2006 deadline. A
Petition to File Answer Nunc Pro Tunc with proffered Answer attached was received on
June 14, 2006.
In the Petition, Counsel states that he met with Respondent on May 11, 2006 to
review the Investigative Complaint. In the following week, counsel experienced medical
problems, went to a hospital emergency room on May 21, 2006 and underwent surgery a
few days later. Thereafter, counsel only worked part -time until June 12, 2006. As a
consequence, an Answer was not filed by the June 5, 2006 deadline.
The Investigative Division has filed an Answer and Memorandum opposing the
Respondent's Petition. The Investigative Division proffers the following:
• Special Investigator Pat McEvoy contacted counsel as Township Solicitor
and counsel did not represent the Respondent at that time;
• Counsel has not proffered a responsive Answer but rather a counter
Position Statement;
• Counsel in the proffered Answer failed to specifically address the averments
in the Investigative Complaint so that the Answer is legally deficient;
• Counsel's Petition seeks permission to file nunc pro tunc based upon
attorney negligence rather than on unforeseen /extraordinary circumstances
that would make it impossible to timely file;
• Counsel submits a request that has no legal basis for the requested relief;
• Counsel has not even alleged fraud or a breakdown in the mail system,
which are bases for granting a nunc pro tunc filing of an answer;
• Counsel has not demonstrated non - negligent exceptional circumstances to
justify the grant of requested relief;
• An administrative agency may not extend statutory deadlines as a matter of
grace;
• The Commission has established an extraordinary high standard for
allowing an untimely answer or appeal;
• Respondent has failed to meet the high burden for filing an answer beyond
the statutory deadline;
• Attorney negligence does not provide a basis for allowing the filing of a late
Nagele, 05 -037
Page 18
answer;
• The Commission adopted the high standard for allowing the filing of
untimely answers from court decisions in Pennsylvania;
• Respondent has presented no evidence to warrant the grant of a filing of an
Answer Nunc Pro Tunc;
• Respondent has not established any non - negligent exceptional
circumstance for the grant of the requested relief;
• The Commission in numerous prior cases has followed prior precedent of
the courts and its own precedent in denying requests for filing answers nunc
pro tunc that do not meet the stringent criteria for allowance;
• The Commission denied a request for filing an Answer Nunc Pro Tunc in
Scales, Order 1394, based upon counsel's claimed incapacity from a recent
surgery; and
• Respondent has failed to establish any basis for the grant of his Petition to
File an Answer Nunc Pro Tunc.
It is clear under the Ethics Law and Regulations that a response to the
Investigative Complaint must be received within 30 days. 65 Pa.C.S. §1108(e); 51
Pa.Code §21.5(k). Cf., Criss v. Wise, 566 Pa. 437, 781 A.2d 1156 (2001). As noted
above, even the face sheet of the Investigative Complaint states that an Answer must be
received within 30 days. In this case, a Petition to File Answer Nunc Pro Tunc with
proffered Answer was received nine days after the deadline for filing an Answer.
In order for a late answer to be deemed timely filed, we apply the same standard as
is applied by the courts to untimely appeals. See, Getz v. Pennsylvania Game
Commission, 475 A.2d 1369 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1984) (applying that standard in
administrative proceedings to an untimely request for a hearing). The standard is that to
accept the untimely filing as if it were timely, there must either have been fraud or a
breakdown in the administrative process, see, West Penn Power Co. v. Goddard, 460 Pa.
551, 333 A.2d 909 (1975); Bianco v. Robinson Twp., 556 A.2d 993 (Pa. Commw. Ct.
1989), which includes the postal process (Getz v. Pennsylvania Game Commission, 475
A.2d 1369 (1984)), or there must have been unique and compelling factual circumstances
establishing non - negligent failure to file timely, Grimaud v. Dep't of Env. Resources, 638
A.2d 299 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1994). See also, Criss v. Wise, supra. Mere delays in the
U.S. mail, even during a holiday season, are considered foreseeable and avoidable and
are insufficient grounds to support a Petition to File Answer Nunc Pro Tunc. Criss v.
Wise, supra.
None of the conditions for allowing the filing of a late Answer is present in this
case. In fact, there has not even been any allegation of fraud, any breakdown in the
administrative process or the mail delivery system, or any unique and compelling factual
circumstances that would establish a non - negligent failure to timely file. The only
argument proffered is that counsel for Respondent had surgery in May of 2006 after which
he worked part -time until June 12, 2006. That argument presents no basis for allowing
the filing of a late Answer. Baxter, Order No. 985. Parenthetically, we note that our
Regulations allow for the filing of an application for an extension to file an Answer. 51
Pa.Code §21.5(k). No such request was made in this case prior to the filing deadline. The
Petition to File Answer Nunc Pro Tunc is denied.
Nagele, 05 -037
Page 19
On the substantive issues, the Investigative Division has filed a Position Statement
raising the following: Nagele received a personal financial gain in excess of the rate
approved by the auditors; Nagele utilized legal services of a personal nature, paid by the
Township; Nagele violated the Ethics Act by providing wages to himself that were not
authorized by the auditors; Nagele attempted to deceive and hence intentionally violated
the Ethics Act as to his 2002 calendar year SFI; Nagele violated the Ethics Act by
participating, approving and issuing payments of wages to himself in excess of the rate
approved by the auditors; Nagele violated the Ethics Act when he failed to file and then
backdated an SFI; and Nagele received a private pecuniary benefit of $1,940.50 in excess
wages, $950 in personal legal services paid by the Township and $989.50 in salary during
the year he failed to file an SFI. The Investigative Division also seeks the imposition of
interest on the total payback for Nagele.
Preliminarily, we again note that all the averments of the Investigative Complaint are
deemed admitted as Findings of Fact. Second, although we find Nagele's uncivil conduct
as to the Auditor, township resident and State Trooper (and no doubt as to other
individuals) to be abhorrent, we recognize that such matters are beyond the scope of our
jurisdiction.
As to Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, there were uses of authority of office on the
part of Nagele regarding the compensation that he received as a working township
employee. Even though the Township Board of Auditors performed its function of setting
the compensation of Nagele at $8.90 per hour in January of 2004, followed by resetting the
compensation in March of 2004 at $11.00 an hour, Nagele took action to receive
compensation at an unauthorized rate of $12.00 per hour, retroactive to the beginning of
January of that year. In addition, Nagele participated in the payroll approval that was
done on a monthly basis. Nagele also co- signed most of the payroll reports for 2004 and
co- endorsed the Township checks that were issued in payment to him. All such actions
were uses of authority of office. See, Juliante, Order 809. The uses of authority of office
on the part of Nagele resulted in a pecuniary benefit to him consisting of the $1,941.50 that
he received as a working township employee, computed as 1,941.5 hours x $1.00 per hour
of additional unauthorized compensation. In that such compensation was a financial gain
that was not authorized in law, it was a private pecuniary benefit. Lastly, that private
pecuniary benefit inured to Nagele himself. Accordingly, Nagele violated Section 1103(a)
of the Ethics Act when he used the authority of office as a Township Supervisor to increase
his rate of compensation as a working Township employee, thereby generating additional
compensation of $1,941.50 to himself that was not authorized by the Township Board of
Auditors. See, Hessinger, Order 931. Nagele violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act
when he used the authority of office to approve excess compensation to himself and co-
endorsed checks payable to himself for that unauthorized compensation.
Turning to the actions of Nagele against a Township Auditor, Township resident and
a State Trooper, such actions by Nagele, in addition to being totally inappropriate, crude
and possibly criminal in nature, resulted in two instances where charges were filed against
him. Nagele retained private counsel on those two occasions and his attorney billed for
legal services totaling $800. Nagele submitted to the Township both of those legal bills as
well as $150 for posting bail. But for the fact that Nagele was a supervisor, he would not
have been in a position to submit such legal bills and fee to the township for payment. In
addition, Nagele participated in the approval of those payments as well as co- endorsed a
check in payment to his counsel. Such actions were uses of authority of office. As a
result, a pecuniary benefit inured to Nagele in that he did not have any out -of- pocket
expenses to pay for the legal services and bail. Lastly, that pecuniary benefit was private
because there is no authorization in law for the Township to pay for those personal legal
services provided to Nagele. Accordingly, Nagele violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics
Act when he used the authority of office as to the approval and payment of attorney's fees
and bail that were of a personal legal nature. See, Borland, Order 785.
Nagele, 05 -037
Page 20
The last matter before us concerns the calendar year 2002 SFI that Nagele was
required to file. The record reflects that Nagele did not timely file the 2002 calendar year
SFI by the filing deadline of May 1, 2003. In addition, after Nagele was confronted with the
failure to file, he produced a backdated SFI for the 2002 calendar year. That SFI that had
a printer's revision dated SEC -1 REV.01 /06 did not exist on the date that Nagele alleged
he filed the SFI. Accordingly, Nagele violated Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act when he
failed to timely file an SFI for the 2002 calendar year by May 1, 2003. See, Attardo, Order
1206. In addition, Nagele violated Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act when he backdated
for the calendar year 2002 an SFI that was prepared and submitted after May 1, 2003.
See, Thomas, Order 1218.
Nagele received compensation during calendar year 2002 but failed to file the
requisite SFI. Accordingly, Nagele violated Section 1104(d) of the Ethics Act when he
received compensation as a public official but failed to file the requisite SFI for calendar
year 2002. See, Draper, Order 1229.
Section 407(13)/1107(13) of the Ethics Act empowers this Commission to impose
restitution in instances where a public official /public employee has obtained a financial
gain in violation of the Ethics Act. Restitution is warranted in this case. Accordingly,
Nagele is directed within 30 days of the date of mailing of this Order to make payment to
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania through this Commission in the amount of $2,891.50,
consisting of unauthorized compensation of $1,941.50 and legal services and bail in the
amount of $950. In addition to the above, Nagele will file complete and accurate
SFIs /amended SFIs for the calendar years 2000 through 2005 within 30 days of the date of
mailing of this Order, listing reportable financial interests, including but not limited to, the
deficiencies noted above. The originals will be filed with Overton Township, with copies
filed with this Commission for compliance verification purposes. Non - compliance will result
in the institution of an order enforcement action.
We remind Nagele that public office is a public trust. Nagele is directed to comport
himself in the future so that his conduct adheres to both the letter and spirit of the Ethics
Act.
IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
1. Ray Nagele, Jr. (Nagele) as a Supervisor of Overton Township, Bradford County, is
a public official subject to the provisions of Act 9 of 1989 as codified by Act 93 of
1998.
2. Nagele violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he used the authority of
office as a Township Supervisor to increase his rate of compensation as a working
Township employee, thereby generating additional compensation of $1,941.50 to
himself that was not authorized by the Township Board of Auditors.
3. Nagele violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he used the authority of
office to approve excess compensation to himself and co- endorsed checks payable
to himself for that unauthorized compensation.
4. Nagele violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he used the authority of
office as to the approval and payment by the Township of attorney's fees and bail
totaling $950 that were of a personal legal nature.
5. Nagele violated Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act when he failed to timely file an
SFI for the 2002 calendar year by May 1, 2003.
6. Nagele violated Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act when he backdated for calendar
year 2002 an SFI that was prepared and submitted after May 1, 2003.
Nagele, 05 -037
Page 21
7 Nagele violated Section 1104(d) of the Ethics Act when he received compensation
as a public official but failed to file the requisite SFI for calendar year 2002.
In Re: Ray Nagele, Jr.,
Respondent
File Docket: 05 -037
Date Decided: 6/23/06
Date Mailed: 6/30/06
ORDER NO. 1403
1 Ray Nagele, Jr. (Nagele) as a Supervisor of Overton Township, Bradford County,
violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he used the authority of office as a
Township Supervisor to increase his rate of compensation as a working Township
employee, thereby generating additional compensation of $1,941.50 to himself that
was not authorized by the Township Board of Auditors.
2. Nagele violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he used the authority of
office to approve excess compensation to himself and co- endorsed checks payable
to himself for that unauthorized compensation.
3. Nagele violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he used the authority of
office as to the approval and payment by the Township of attorney's fees and bail
totaling $950 that were of a personal legal nature.
4. Nagele violated Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act when he failed to timely file an
SFI for the 2002 calendar year by May 1, 2003.
5. Nagele violated Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act when he backdated for calendar
year 2002 an SFI that was prepared and submitted after May 1, 2003.
6. Nagele violated Section 1104(d) of the Ethics Act when he received compensation
as a public official but failed to file the requisite SFI for calendar year 2002.
7 Nagele is directed within 30 days of the date of mailing of this Order to make
payment to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania through this Commission in the
amount of $2,891.50.
8. Nagele is directed to file complete and accurate SFIs /amended SFIs for the
calendar years 2000 through 2005 within 30 days of the date of mailing of this
Order, listing reportable financial interests, including but not limited to, the
deficiencies noted above. The originals will be filed with Overton Township, with
copies filed with this Commission for compliance verification purposes.
9. Failure to comply with paragraphs 7 and 8 will result in the institution of an order
enforcement action.
BY THE COMMISSION,
Louis W. Fryman, Chair