HomeMy WebLinkAbout1417 RemboldIn Re: Charles Rembold,
Respondent
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
05 -006
Order No. 1417
10/4/2006
10/20/2006
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 allegation(s). 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. The record is complete. 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Effective December 15, 1998, Act 9 of 1989 was repealed and replaced by Chapter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.
Rembold, 05 -006
Page 2
I. ALLEGATION:
That Charles Rembold, a (public official /public employee) in his capacity as a
Member of the Greene County Industrial Development Authority (GCIDA) Board of
Directors, violated Sections 1103(a),(c) ,(f); 1104(a); and 1105(b)(4),(5) provisions of the
State Ethics Act (Act 93 of 1998), 65 Pa. .S. § §1103(a),(c),(f); 1104(a); and 1105(b)(4),(5)
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 participating in discussions, decisions and other
actions of the board and /or the GCIDA including making recommendations resulting in a
contract being awarded to Prosocial Solutions when he had a reasonable expectation that
he would receive payments from Prosocial; and when he made recommendations to award
a contract to Prosocial based on his understanding that he would solicit, accept, or receive
a portion of any funds paid to Prosocial by the GCIDA; when he used the authority of his
position as GCIDA member to take possession of computer equipment from the GCIDA for
his personal use; when he participated in discussions and decisions of the GCIDA to
award a contract in excess of $500.00 to his son Brian Rembold for the development of a
website for Evergreene Technology without an open and public process; when he failed to
file a Statement of Financial Interests for the 2003 calendar year by May 1, 2004; when he
failed to disclose sources of income and creditors on Statements of Financial Interests
filed for the 2002 and 2004 calendar years; and when as Superintendent of the Jefferson -
Morgan School District he used school district equipment, facilities, material, and time to
further his outside business interests, including but not limited to, acting as a compensated
instructor for an on -line university; and when he failed to disclose creditors on Statements
of Financial Interests filed for the 2002, 2003, and 2004 calendar years and failed to
disclose sources of income on the Statements of Financial Interests filed for the 2004
calendar years; and when he backdated a Statement of Financial Interests filed for the
2000 calendar year giving the impression that it had been timely filed.
II. FINDINGS:
1. Charles P. Rembold served as a member of the Greene County Industrial
Development Authority (hereafter IDA) Board of Directors from July 3, 1996 through
June 30, 2004.
a. Rembold served as the President of the IDA from December 12, 1996 to
June 16, 2004.
b. As a Member of the IDA, Rembold was a public official subject to the
provisions of the Ethics Law.
2. Rembold resigned from the IDA effective June 30, 2004.
a. The county commissioners recommended Rembold's resignation due to
negative publicity Rembold received from his previous violations of the
Ethics Act documented in State Ethics Commission Order No. 1303.
3. The IDA concentrates on economic development within Greene County with a focus
on the creation, attraction and retention of businesses.
a. The IDA offers financial assistance through bond issues, Pennsylvania
Industrial Development Authority (PIDA) loans, Machinery and Equipment
Loan Financing (MELF), conventional financing, bridge financing, etc.
b. The IDA office offers grant writing, business plan development, and training
programs for Greene County businesses.
4. A five - member board of directors governs the IDA.
Rembold, 05 -006
Page 3
a. IDA board members are appointed to five -year terms by the Greene County
Commissioners.
5. As a member of the IDA board, Rembold advocated the pursuit of available grants
for which the IDA would serve as the fiscal agent /administrator.
a. Rembold actively researched and participated in the application process for
various grants applied for by the IDA.
b. Rembold was familiar with grant writing through his previous experience in
writing grants in his positions as superintendent for West Greene or
Jefferson Morgan School Districts.
6. Rembold informed IDA board members and representatives at regular IDA board
meetings of various grants applied for and received.
a. Grants applied for were not consistently discussed or approved by the IDA
board prior to submission of the application.
b. IDA board members first knowledge of grants received often occurred when
Rembold or other IDA representatives informed them of the receipt of the
grant.
c. Rembold occasionally presented the information to the board due to his
position as board president and due to his involvement with grant pursuit.
7 The 21 Century Community Learning Centers Program (hereafter 21 CCLC) was
established by Congress to award grants to rural and inner -city public schools or
consortia of such schools.
a. The 21 CCLC Program is designed to provide opportunities to students for
academic enrichment during non - school hours or periods when school is not
in session (before school, after school, and during the summer).
b. 21 CCLCs offer students a broad array of additional services, programs,
and activities designed to reinforce and complement the regular academic
program of the participating students.
8. In Greene County, the 21 CCLC Program is an educational partnership coalition of
Community Learning Centers that provides educational, health, social services,
cultural, and recreational opportunities for students to achieve success.
a. A minimum of thirteen Community Learning Centers are operational in
Greene County including two sites in West Greene School District, three
sites in Central Greene School District, two sites in Jefferson Morgan School
District, one site in Carmichaels School District, two sites in Southeast
Greene School District, and the main CCLC office located in Waynesburg.
b. Each site has a committee of students, parents, teachers, administrators,
community members, and a Site Coordinator who provides support, input,
and direction for the program.
9. Linda P. McCracken is the Director of the 21 CCLC Program for Greene County.
a. McCracken is considered a consultant with the Greene County Career and
Technology Center (formerly the Greene County Area Vocational Technical
Rembold, 05 -006
Page 4
School) in her Director's position.
b. 21 CCLC grants utilized by the 21 CCLC are administered through the
Greene County Career and Technology Center.
10. McCracken reports to the Greene County Education Consortium (hereafter
Education Consortium) in her position as Director of the 21 CCLC program.
a. The Education Consortium is composed of the superintendent of each of the
five school districts in Greene County (West Greene, Central Greene,
Jefferson Morgan, Carmichaels, and Southeast Greene) and the Director of
the Greene County Career and Technology Center.
1. Rembold served as a member of the Education Consortium from at
least October 1995 through May 2005.
11. The 21 CCLC program and the Education Consortium work in collaboration with
the IDA.
a. The 21 CCLC and the Education Consortium pursue various grants for
program funding.
1. Grants pursued through the IDA are typically written by McCracken or
an IDA representative.
12. In or about 2002, the IDA, in conjunction with the 21 CCLC, the Education
Consortium, the Greene County Technology Consortium, PBS Literacy Link, and
the Childcare Program of Greene County, pursued grant funds through the United
States Department of Education for the development of three Community
Technology Centers to be located at the Carmichaels Area Jr /Sr HS, Jefferson -
Morgan Jr /Sr HS, and Waynesburg Central HS.
a. Community Technology Centers provide computer access and educational
services using information technology.
13. Rembold, in his capacity as the President of the IDA, submitted an application to
the United States Department of Education on or about June 30, 2002 for the
Greene County Community Technology Center Program.
a. The application documents Rembold as the Project Director.
b. Rembold's signature is documented as the authorized representative of the
applicant.
c. The proposed project dates were October 1, 2002 through September 30,
2003.
14. McCracken assisted Rembold with the development of the 2002 Comm -Tech
application submitted to the United States Department of Education.
a. McCracken was involved in the application due to the fact that the
Community Technology Centers were to be located at 21 CCLC sites
already established.
b. McCracken was primarily involved in writing the section of the application
narrative dealing with academic achievement of high school students.
Rembold, 05 -006
Page 5
c. Rembold was primarily responsible for developing the budget associated
with the grant.
15. The application requested $300,000.00 in federal funding (along with $281,000.00
provided by the IDA) to be utilized for personnel, fringe benefits, equipment,
supplies, contractual obligations, and other expenses in association with the
proposed Community Technology Centers.
a. Included in the "Personnel" category was the establishment of a Comm -Tech
Project Director with an annual salary of $50,000.00.
1. Attachment 1 to the application included a job description for the
Comm -Tech Project Director.
2. Attachment 2 to the application noted Bryan [sic] Rembold, Rembold's
son, as the proposed Comm -Tech Project Director and included
Bryan [sic] Rembold's resume.
b. Included in the "Contractual" category was the allocation of $30,000.00 to an
outside consultant to be commissioned to assist with the program evaluation.
1. The identity of the outside consultant was not noted in the application.
16. Rembold received correspondence dated September 30, 2002 from Cheryl Keenan,
Division Director, United States Department of Education, Office of Vocational and
Adult Education that the application was not recommended for funding.
17. Rembold, as the President of the IDA, submitted a second application to the United
States Department of Education on or about July 4, 2003 for the Greene County
Community Technology Center Program.
a. The application documents Rembold as the Project Director.
b. Rembold's name is documented as the authorized representative of the
applicant.
c. The proposed project dates were October 1, 2003 through September 30,
2004.
d. The application noted the desire to develop a Community Technology Center
in each of the five school districts in Greene County (Carmichaels School
District, Central Greene School District, Jefferson - Morgan School District,
Southeastern School District, and West Greene School District).
18. McCracken and Bertrum Menhart, IDA Director of Special Projects, assisted
Rembold with the development of the 2003 Comm -Tech application submitted to the
United States Department of Education.
a. McCracken was involved in the application due to the fact that the
Community Technology Centers were to be located in 21 CCLCs already
established.
b. Menhart assisted Rembold with the budget.
19. The application requested $497,000.00 in federal funding (along with $350,000.00
provided by the IDA and $883,000.00 in local funding) to be utilized for personnel,
fringe benefits, travel, equipment, supplies, contractual obligations, training
Rembold, 05 -006
Page 6
stipends, and other expenses in association with the proposed Community
Technology Centers.
a. Included in the "Personnel" category was the establishment of a Comm -Tech
Project Director with an annual salary of $55,000.00.
1. Included with the application was Bryan [sic] Rembold's resume for
the Comm -Tech Project Director Position.
2. Bryan [sic] Rembold is Charles Rembold's son.
b. Included in the "Contractual" category was the allocation of $30,000.00 to an
outside consultant to be commissioned to assist with the program evaluation.
1. The identity of the outside consultant was not noted in the application.
20. The IDA was denied funding by the United States Department of Education, Office
of Vocational and Adult Education regarding the application submitted in 2003.
21. The Richard King Mellon Foundation (hereafter Mellon Foundation) is an entity that
provides grant funding primarily over a ten to twelve county area in Southwestern
Pennsylvania.
22. Scott Izzo was employed as an Associate Director with the Mellon Foundation from
approximately mid -2001 through mid -2005.
a. Izzo's responsibilities included project assessment and determination if grant
funding was appropriate for projects under consideration.
23. The IDA submitted a proposal /request to the Mellon Foundation in January 2003
regarding the project.
24. On April 4, 2003, Chappel and Menhart met with Izzo at Izzo's office in Pittsburgh,
Pa, regarding funding in support of the after school programs, the evening classes,
and the childcare program associated with the 21 CCLC and the proposed
Community Technology Centers.
25. The Mellon Foundation subsequently issued the IDA a $500,000.00 grant in May
2003 under their Regional Economic Development program.
a. The grant was issued towards two years of support for newly established
childcare centers and after - school tutoring programs in Greene County.
26. Subsequent to the presentation by Chappel and Menhart, Izzo contacted James
Denova of the Claude Worthington Benedum Foundation and inquired if Denova
was interested in assisting with funding for the project.
a. Izzo felt that Denova may be interested in the workforce development aspect
of the Comm -Tech project.
27. The Claude Worthington Benedum Foundation (hereafter Benedum Foundation) is
an entity that serves the general well being of the citizenry of West Virginia and
Southwestern Pennsylvania (specifically Allegheny, Fayette, Washington, and
Greene Counties).
a. Program categories for funding include education, workforce development,
economic development, health and human services, and community
Rembold, 05 -006
Page 7
development.
b. The Benedum Foundation typically awards approximately fifteen million
dollars per year in grants.
28. Denova is employed as a Senior Program Officer for the Benedum Foundation.
a. Denova's responsibilities include investigating projects for funding and
making recommendations to the Benedum Foundation Board.
29. In approximately mid -2003, Denova contacted the IDA and requested a meeting in
order to discuss the possibility of funding the Community Technology Centers.
a. The meeting occurred on July 10, 2003 at the IDA office in Waynesburg, Pa.
30. Attending the meeting and participating in the discussion were Rembold,
McCracken, Don Chappel (IDA Executive Director), and Bertrum Menhart (IDA
Director of Special Projects).
a. Rembold supplied Denova with a copy of the Comm -Tech Grant application
previously submitted to the U.S. Department of Education for review at the
meeting.
1. Included was the $30,000 contract allocation for program evaluation.
31. On or about October 3, 2003, Denova again met with IDA representatives including
Rembold to further discuss a grant from the Benedum Foundation to fund the
Community Technology Centers.
a. Denova informed those in attendance that funding was available and that he
wished to fund a project for the IDA.
1. Denova did not know the exact amount of funding available at that
time.
b. The purpose of the meeting was to establish parameters for the grant which
would permit funding to the IDA from the Benedum Foundation.
c. Individuals present and participating in the meeting included Rembold,
Menhart, and McCracken.
32. After the October 3, 2003 meeting, Denova interacted primarily with McCracken
regarding the establishment of goals and objectives for the grant funding.
33. Rembold, McCracken, and Menhart were aware of funding parameters provided by
Denova as early as October 21, 2003.
a. E -mail communication between McCracken and Denova dated October 23,
2003 documents the following, "Chuck, Bert, and I met on Tuesday to review
the Commtech grant as submitted to the federal government for funding and
how it could be revised to fit into the money parameters you provided to
us.
34. On November 3, 2003, an agenda setting meeting was held by the Benedum
Foundation Board of Trustees.
a. The purpose of the meeting was to set the agenda for the regular board
Rembold, 05 -006
Page 8
meeting to be held on December 9, 2003.
b. Included with the agenda was the specific amount of Benedum Foundation
funding to be provided to the IDA as determined by Denova.
c. Denova completed an Agenda Planning Worksheet at the November 3, 2003
meeting which documented the IDA requested amount of $497,000.00 and
the Benedum Foundation proposed amount of $260,000.00.
1. The IDA requested amount was taken directly from the 2003 Comm -
Tech application provided to Denova by Rembold.
d. Denova specified the amount of proposed funding to McCracken on or about
November 3, 2003.
35. On December 3, 2003, McCracken sent e -mail communication to Denova inquiring
if Denova required any additional information from Rembold, Menhart or her
regarding the proposed grant.
a. The e -mail indicated that Rembold, Menhart, and McCracken were excited
about the prospects of working with Denova.
36. Denova responded to McCracken's communication via e-mail dated December 4,
2003.
a. Denova responded that the Benedum Foundation trustees would be meeting
on December 9, 2003 to approve grants.
b. Denova indicated that he did not anticipate a problem with the grant.
37. At the December 9, 2003, meeting of the Benedum Foundation Board of Trustees,
Denova presented the trustees with a program staff write -up that summarized the
details of the IDA project for funding of $260,000.
a. The document prepared by Denova included information provided by the
IDA.
38. Documented in the program staff write -up, along with additional information, is the
following:
The inspiration and direction of the COMM -TEC model came from Dr.
Charles Rembold, superintendent of the Jefferson - Morgan School District,
Chair of the Technology and Education Consortium and current Chair of the
Industrial Development Authority. Dr. Rembold led prior initiatives on behalf
of the Consortium including a distance learning network that allows
Waynesburg faculty to provide direct instruction to all five high schools in the
County."
39. The program staff write -up presented by Denova included funding for an evaluation
of the program in the amount of $30,000.00.
a. An evaluation by an outside consultant was part of the original Comm -Tech
grant application provided by Rembold to Denova as a reference.
b. Denova included the evaluation component in the Benedum Grant because
he felt it was important for an evaluation to be completed.
Rembold, 05 -006
Page 9
c. Denova did not change the evaluation amount from that listed on the original
Comm -Tech grant.
40. Minutes of the December 9, 2003 Benedum Foundation Board of Trustees note the
approval of a $260,000.00 grant to the IDA as part of the Southwestern
Pennsylvania Grants Program.
a. The purpose of the grant was noted as development of five Community
Technology Education Centers for workforce training.
41. On December 10, 2003, McCracken contacted Denova via e-mail and inquired as to
the status of the grant proposal.
a. Denova responded via e-mail on December 11, 2003 that the grant was
approved for $260,000.00 and that a letter of agreement would be arriving
soon.
42. Prosocial Solutions Research (hereafter Prosocial) is a consulting business owned
and operated by Stephen Ellsworth.
a. Prosocial provides services in grant acquisition and project implementation,
management, and evaluation among other services.
b. Ellsworth operates the business from his home residence in Virginia.
c. As of August 2006, Ellsworth was a Colonel in the U.S. Army stationed at
Fort Lee, VA.
43. Rembold and Ellsworth maintained a social and professional relationship.
a. Rembold and Ellsworth met at the Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana,
while performing doctorial work in the summer of 1998.
b. Ellsworth ultimately developed the Plus Three Program which was provided
to King's Bridge, Inc. for utilization in PULSE (People Utilizing Leadership
Skills Effectively), a program for assisting, at risk youth.
1. Rembold was one of the originators of King's Bridge, Inc. and was an
originator of PULSE Program.
c. Ellsworth performed compensated services as a facilitator at various PULSE
programs where Rembold also served as a facilitator.
44. Prosocial /Ellsworth knew as early as July 2003 that Prosocial would be utilized by
Rembold as the evaluator of future grants.
a. E -mails between Ellsworth and Linda - McCracken confirm discussions
regarding grants and PULSE Programs.
45. Rembold and McCracken met and discussed the $30,000.00 allocation for the
outside evaluation between the approximate dates of November 3, 2003 and
December 12, 2003.
a. Rembold devised a scheme where Prosocial would be utilized as the outside
consultant for the Benedum grant and paid by the IDA where Rembold
served as board president.
Rembold, 05 -006
Page 10
1 Rembold informed McCracken that Prosocial, the consulting business
owned by his friend and colleague, would be the grant evaluator.
aa. McCracken was familiar with Ellsworth through Ellsworth's
association with the PULSE Program.
b. Part of the funds paid by the IDA to Prosocial would be kick backed to
Rembold.
c. Rembold directed that the $30,000.00 established for the evaluation be
divided between himself, McCracken, and Ellsworth.
1. A lesser amount was to be provided to R. Edgar Thacker, an
associate of Rembold's in Kings Bridge.
46. Ellsworth was provided information from McCracken that Prosocial would be the
evaluator for the project and was provided direction on how the evaluation was to
be completed.
a. E -mail communication from McCracken to Ellsworth detailed results of a
conversation held between Rembold, McCracken, and Menhart as follows:
1. Rembold directed McCracken to give Ellsworth a copy of their last
Community Technology Center Grant, a copy of the Community
Technology Center guidelines, and the information in the contract
with the Benedum so that a "blue ribbon" award Community
Technology Center Grant could be submitted in the summer of 2004.
2. Rembold and Menhart wanted the evaluation to be done quarterly
(four months, eight months, twelve months, and sixteen months) and
to be formative and summative.
aa. McCracken noted in the e -mail that this would be Ellsworth's
decision.
3. Rembold wanted the evaluation to measure affective results as well
as just data collection.
4. The total for the evaluation would be $30,000.00 and divided into five
payments, $6,000.00 to begin for planning, design, etc., and then
$6,000.00 at each quarter following the quarterly report.
aa. Ellsworth was to invoice the IDA directly for services performed.
47. Subsequent to McCracken's meeting with Rembold, in or around November 2003,
McCracken conveyed to Ellsworth at Rembold's direction specific instructions
regarding the division of funds.
a. E -mail correspondence from Ellsworth to McCracken dated December 12,
2003 notes, among other information, "I need to understand how Chuck
wants the $30K divided again, just to be sure."
48. Rembold met with McCracken on December 12, 2003 and explained to her how the
$30,000 evaluation fee would be divided among Rembold, McCracken, and
Ellsworth.
49. McCracken then responded to Ellsworth's message via e -mail communication on
Rembold, 05 -006
Page 11
December 12, 2003, which documented the following:
"Chuck just spent several minutes trying to explain to me on how he wants this
done -the money thing -I will try to do this the best I can; you may still have to have
him explain it to you. He asked if you understood the big picture —for all of us to
make money -now and in the future? He wanted to know if you understood that he
needed money to help pay his legal fees? OK, here I go. The $30,000 will be
divided by 3 (you, me, and him) which equals $10,000 per person. $1,000 from
each of us will go to Prosocial for administrative costs and taxes. Taxes: 15% of
profit. Costs are 80% deductible (with detailed records). 80% of $30,000 =
$24,000 as costs. $6,000 as profit for Prosocial. 15% Taxes for Corporate which is
.15 x 6000 = $900 corporate taxes on $30,000. $3000 -$900 = $2100 as profit for
Prosocial. Then a new wrinkle; he wants you to pay ET $1500 for consultant
services which would leave $600 in Prosocial. I asked why ET; he said two things,
one he owes ET some money and and secondly it gives ET a legit reason (Brenda)
to meet and work with us. He said that all three of us need to keep /document all
expenses -when you come here, when we go see you, etc. He says this is only a
beginning; as we are successful with future grants you will always be the evaluator.
hope I have explained it clearly enough. Can you live with this? Oh, he wants us
to be paid in cash. It doesn't make a difference to me how you pay me if some
other way works out for you. Tell me what you think."
a. "ET" is Rile Edgar Thacker, an associate of Rembold in Kings Bridge Inc.
1. Rembold was found to be in violation of the Ethics Act and fined for
using his position as Superintendent of the West Greene School
District to obtain grants to fund the PULSE Program and to steer
contracts to Kings Bridge Inc.
2. Rembold was a Corporate Officer and Director of Kings Bridge Inc.
and received payments from Kings Bridge Inc. for services related to
the PULSE Program.
b. "Brenda" is Brenda Spratt (Thacker's spouse).
50. Rembold provided McCracken with all of the information in the December 12, 2003
McCracken e -mail communication for ultimate dissemination to Ellsworth.
a. Rembold provided McCracken his handwritten notes which formed the basis
of the December 12, 2003 e -mail.
b. McCracken's e-mail to Ellsworth contained information directly from
Rembold's handwritten notes.
1. Handwriting analysis by the Pennsylvania State Police verified that
Rembold's handwriting is consistent with the written notes utilized by
McCracken to disseminate the information.
51. Ellsworth acknowledged acceptance of and inclusion in the scheme via e-mail
response sent to McCracken on December 12, 2003, which documented the
following:
We will make it work, no problem, but the math is a bit fuzzy, as at this time, one
can only estimate. However, it sounds like of the 30,000, I get 12000, and you and
Chuck get 9000 each. On top of that, we each divvy up ET's share which will be
500 each, so in reality, I get 11500, and you and Chuck get 8500. My share is
larger as I have to bear the cost of the taxes, while Chuck's share is tax -free
Rembold, 05 -006
Page 12
essentially as it is under the table. Your share would be taxable. That is how I read
this."
52. The legal fees of Rembold referred to in McCracken's e-mail were the result of an
Ethics Commission investigation and ruling regarding Rembold's activities as
school superintendent in relation to contracts awarded to Kings Bridge and
subsequent payments made to Rembold.
a. Rembold admitted to violations of the Ethics Act and made a restitution
payment to the State Ethics Commission in the amount of $26,397.50 on
December 29, 2003 representing the amount that he obtained through his
public position in violation of the law.
53. The actual division of funds based upon Rembold's instruction to McCracken was to
result in Rembold, McCracken, and Ellsworth each receiving $9,000.00 as shown
below:
Rembold: $9,000.00
McCracken $9,000.00
Ellsworth: $9,000.00
Thacker: $1,500.00
Prosocial: $ 600.00
Taxes: $ 900.00
Total: $30,000.00
a. The amounts for Thacker, Prosocial, and Taxes were to be paid via
$3,000.00 of the $30,000.00 evaluation total.
1. The $3,000.00 resulted from a credit of $1,000.00 each from
Rembold, Ellsworth, and McCracken of the original $30,000.00 three -
way split.
b. Prosocials' profit on the books was $6,000.00 or 20% of $30,000.00 as 80%
of the total $30,000.00 could be deducted for tax purposes.
c. The amount of taxes was calculated at 15% of the profit to Prosocial.
54. Rembold's solicitation of the $9,000 cash payment from Ellsworth /Prosocial was
based upon Rembold's understanding that he would recommend the selection of
Prosocial to perform the evaluation for the IDA project.
55. Denova generated a grant agreement letter to Chappel dated December 15, 2003,
confirming the authorization of a grant from the Benedum Foundation in the amount
of $260,000.00 payable to the IDA to develop five Community Technology
Education Centers for workforce training.
a. The grant agreement letter indicated that payment of the grant was included
with the letter and that endorsement or deposit of the check constituted
acceptance by the IDA of all the terms and conditions contained in the
agreement letter.
b. Chappel signed and returned the grant agreement letter to Denova on or
about January 5, 2004.
56. The Benedum Foundation issued the IDA check number 2204, dated December 16,
2003, in the amount of $260,000.00 representative of the grant issued.
Rembold, 05 -006
Page 13
a. The check was deposited into an IDA account at First National Bank on
January 6, 2004.
57. The receipt of the Benedum Foundation Grant was first presented to the IDA board
at the December 18, 2003 regular board meeting.
a. Minutes document Rembold's presence at the December 18, 2003 meeting.
58. During the December 18, 2003 presentation of the Benedum Foundation Grant,
specific discussion occurred regarding the need to obtain an outside evaluator for
the grant.
a. Rembold recommended to the IDA board that Prosocial serve as the grant
evaluator.
59. After Rembold's recommendation, IDA board member Richard "Skip" Noftzger
questioned if any of the board members knew anything about Prosocial.
a. Rembold responded that Prosocial had expertise in the area required for the
evaluator.
b. None of the remaining IDA board members had any knowledge of Prosocial
prior to Rembold's recommendation.
60. Noftzger subsequently made a motion, seconded by Board Member Joseph Simatic,
to employ Prosocial as the grant evaluator for a fee not to exceed $30,000.00 and
to have Prosocial responsible for quarterly reports and the grant closeout.
a. The motion passed with no abstention by Rembold.
61. The decision by the IDA Board, in which Rembold participated, to utilize Prosocial
was based solely on the recommendations made by Rembold.
a. No board members were familiar with or had any knowledge of Prosocial
prior to Rembold's recommendation.
62. Rembold's recommendation to select Prosocial as the evaluator was based upon
Rembold's understanding that Prosocial would pay $9,000 in cash to him from the
funds that Prosocial received from the IDA.
63. Ellsworth /Prosocial did not submit quarterly reports to the IDA as required in the
motion to retain Prosocial.
a. Ellsworth provided only an Evaluation Framework, an Interim Evaluation
(dated November 30, 2004), and a Summative Evaluation (dated August 31,
2005) with abridgements of an IDA narrative added on November 30, 2005.
1. The Evaluation Framework provided background regarding the
purpose of the grant issued, the program goal, the method by which
the evaluation would be conducted, various models considered for
the evaluation, and specific evaluation plan phases regarding the
evaluation.
2. The Interim Evaluation provided background on the grant issued by
the Benedum Foundation, the program goal, actual figures utilized
regarding the goals, and Ellsworth's conclusion that the program
initiation was successful, meeting, or was on track in meeting the
Invoice No.
Invoice Date
Amount
Description
Final Vote
April 21, 2004
5634
03/29/04
004 -01 PA
01/12/2004
$6,000.00
Consulting Services: Program Evaluation, Research
Model Determination, Set -Up for Quarterly Reports,
Data Collection and Program Advisement for First
Quarter Project Initiation, Review the USDOE COMM-
TEC Grant Proposal. Vitae for Dr. Stephen C.
Ellsworth is attached for inclusion in the GCIDA files
07/26/04
NA
4 -0
January 19, 2005
004 -02PA
07/15/2004
$6,000.00
Consulting Services: Program Evaluation, Research
Model Determination, Set -Up for Quarterly Reports,
Data Collection and Program Advisement for Second
Quarter project initiation.
May 18, 2005
6732
04/20/05
NA
004 -03PA
12/15/2004
$6,000.00
Consulting Services: Interim Program Evaluation,
Research, Data Collection, and Program Advisement
for Third Quarter 2004.
005 -02PA
02/10/2005
$6,000.00
Consulting Services: Interim Formative Evaluation
005 -03PA
12/20/2005
$2,000.00
Data treatment, summative project evaluation,
consulting and evaluation services completion
Meeting Date
Check Number
Check Date
Rembold's
Vote
Final Vote
April 21, 2004
5634
03/29/04
Yes
4 -0*
August 18, 2004
6003
07/26/04
NA
4 -0
January 19, 2005
6423
01/04/05
NA
5 -0
May 18, 2005
6732
04/20/05
NA
4 -0
Rembold, 05 -006
Page 14
specified and implied tasks of achieving the desired goals.
3. The Summative Evaluation was an all- encompassing report which
included the Evaluation Framework, the Interim Evaluation, and
updated data analysis regarding the entire program.
64. The information (i.e. data, figures, etc.) utilized by Ellsworth in compiling the Interim
Evaluation and the Summative Evaluation were compiled and provided to Ellsworth
by McCracken.
a. Rembold was not involved in the organization, analysis, or reporting of any
data utilized in the production of the Interim or Summative Evaluation.
65. Ellsworth /Prosocial submitted a total of five invoices totaling $26,000.00 to the IDA
requesting payment for services rendered in association with the evaluation for the
Comm -Tech project funded by the Benedum Foundation Grant as shown below:
66. Between the dates of March 29, 2004 and April 20, 2005, the IDA approved
payment and issued four checks from the IDA general account at Community Bank
totaling $24,000.00 to Prosocial as shown below:
* Board Member Jerome Bartley was absent from the April 21, 2004 meeting.
67. Rembold participated in voting on April 21, 2004 to approve check number 5634.
a. Rembold resigned as an IDA board member on June 30, 2004.
68. The IDA has not yet approved payment for Invoice No. 005- 003PA.
69. Prosocial maintains a checking account with Suntrust Bank in Virginia. All checks
Check
Number
Check Date
Deposit Date
5634
03/29/04
04/02/04
6003
07/26/04
07/29/04
6423
01/04/05
01/07/05
6732
04/20/05
04/25/05
Rembold, 05 -006
Page 15
received by Prosocial from the IDA were deposited into Prosocial's account at
Suntrust on or about the dates shown below:
70. Ellsworth /Prosocial issued three payments to McCracken totaling $6,000.00 in
partial fulfillment of the distribution of the funds, as directed by Rembold.
a. Ellsworth provided McCracken a personal check from his checking account
in the amount of $2,000.00 on or about April 27, 2004.
b. Ellsworth provided McCracken with $1,800.00 in cash on or about July 17,
2004.
c. Ellsworth provided McCracken with $2,200.00 in cash on or about
September 8, 2004.
d. Payments to McCracken were made by Ellsworth following his receipt of
payments from the IDA.
71. Prosocial Solutions made two payments to Rile Edgar Thacker from the Prosocial
account.
a. By check dated January 6, 2005, Ellsworth paid Thacker $753, for the
incorporation of a company named Syn- Energy, Inc.
1. Syn- Energy was to be a successor to Kings Bridge, Inc.
b. By check dated January 6, 2005, Ellsworth paid Thacker $2,000 for advice
on tax return preparation for Prosocial Solutions.
72. Thacker did nothing for the $2,000 other than send Ellsworth some written material
and provide limited telephonic tax advice.
73. Ellsworth specifically paid Thacker the $2,000.00, at Rembold's direction and
insistence.
74. On December 15, 2004, Thacker had issued check numbers 1435 and 1436 from
his personal bank account at Bank of America to Burt Menhart in the amounts of
$1,120.00 and $4,000.00 respectively.
a. Check number 1435 was issued to Menhart as payment for a personal
computer (Dell Service Tag #4BVD761) obtained by Menhart for Thacker
through the IDA.
1. The cost of the computer and accessories totaled $1,119.51.
2. The $4,000.00 Thacker paid to Menhart was not related to the
computer purchase
b. Menhart negotiated both checks received from Thacker at First National
Bank on December 20, 2004.
Date
Cash Deposit
12/1/2003
400.00
12/9/2003
850.00
3/22/2004
1,000.00
4/16/2004
500.00
6/7/2004
1,850.00
6/15/2004
1,500.00
6/25/2004
1,000.00
8/31/2004
1,000.00
9/13/2004
2,000.00
Rembold, 05 -006
Page 16
1 Menhart deposited both checks into Account Number 90037068 along
with an IDA payroll check totaling $1,483.57 for an initial deposit of
$6,603.57.
2. The deposit slip associated with the transaction notes $2,003.57
removed in cash from the deposit for a total deposit of $4,600.00.
c. Rembold's personal account at Community Bank (Account Number 2237933)
notes cash deposits of $1,500.00 and $400.00 on December 22, 2004, and
December 29, 2004, respectively. (See Finding No. 76[sic]).
d. Rembold subsequently contacted Ellsworth via telephone and directed
Ellsworth to issue a check to Thacker in the amount of $2,000.00. (See
Finding Nos. 71 -72 [sic]).
1. Ellsworth subsequently issued Thacker check number 1011, dated
January 6, 2005, in the amount of $2,000.00 from the Prosocial
Solutions Research account at SunTrust Bank.
2. The memo section of the check noted "tax prep -PSS" in order to
conceal the true purpose of the check.
75. Direct payments made by Ellsworth to Rembold were made in cash at Rembold's
request.
a. Ellsworth was specifically instructed by Rembold through the December 12,
2003 e -mail communication from McCracken that all payments to Rembold
were to be made in cash.
b. Rembold concealed any payments made to him by directing that the
payments be made in cash.
c. Ellsworth acknowledges that the payments to Rembold would be "under the
table."
76. Rembold and Beverly Rembold (Rembold's spouse) maintain a joint personal
checking account with Community Bank in Carmichaels, Pa, 15320.
a. Deposit information from Rembold's account spanning the time frame of
December 2003 through June 2005 documents cash deposits into
Rembold's account totaling $15,100.00 as shown below:
Date
Cash Deposit
Source
11/16/2004
700.00
12/1/2003
400.00
G.L. Wilson personal check to pay his monthly
expenses to Beverly
12/9/2003
850.00
Winnings and leftover cash from 11/19/06 trip to
Las Vegas - returned 11/23/03
3/22/2004
1,000.00
Beverly's dad died in February, this is cash that
G.L. Wilson had in metal box. This was deposited
with his life insurance money on this date.
4/16/2004
500.00
Personal spending money leftover from Las Vegas
trip on 4/8/04
6/7/2004
1,850.00
First cash deposit from sale of 18k yg royal blue
sapphire 4.76 ct. with .50 ctw diamonds $5500
appraised value: $14,000 Rembold purchased ring
on 10/16/02 and sold on 1/04
6/15/2004
1,500.00
Second cash deposit from sale of 18k yg royal blue
sapphire 4.76 ct with .50 ctw diamonds $5500
appraised value: $14,000
6/25/2004
1,000.00
Third cash deposit from sale of 18k yg royal blue
sapphire 4.76 ct with .50 ctw diamonds $5500
appraised value: $14,000
8/31/2004
1,000.00
Fourth cash deposit from sale of 18k yg royal blue
sapphire 4.76 ct with .50 ctw diamonds $5500
appraised value: $14,000
9/13/2004
2,000.00
Sale of 4.39 ct Ceylon white sapphire oval ring in
14k gold $2000 estimated value: $4000 Rembold
purchased ring on 2/9/03 and sold on 8/04
9/21/2004
400.00
Personal money from winnings ($860) from
Mountaineer Casino, WV on 9/16/04
11/16/2004
700.00
Christmas Club account - withdrawn 10/18/04
$698.91
12/15/2004
2,000.00
From check of G.L. Wilson estate to Beverly
Rembold on 12/06/04 in the amount of $15,000
($13,000 into savings account on 12/7/04 and
$2,000 into checking account on 12/15/04
12/22/2004
1,500.00
First cash deposit from sale of Pittsburgh Steeler
tickets (9 /11/04 Titans $311.67); (10/25/04 Patriots
$305.56); (11/12/04 Redskins $414.46); (12/12/02
Ravens $1044.99) Total $2,076.68
12/29/2004
400.00
Second cash deposit from sale of Pittsburgh
Steeler tickets (9/11/04 Titans $311.67); (10/25/04
Patriots $305.56); (11/21/04 Redskins $414.46;)
(12/20/02 Ravens $1044.99) Total $2076.68
Total
$15,100.00
9/21/2004
400.00
11/16/2004
700.00
12/15/2004
2,000.00
12/22/2004
1,500.00
12/29/2004
400.00
Total
$15,100.00
Rembold, 05 -006
Page 17
b. Cash deposits were made to Rembold's account following the issuance of
payments to Ellsworth /Prosocial.
c. Rembold asserts that the cash deposits delineated above emanated from
various sources as follows:
Date
Cash
Deposit
Source
6/11/2004
80.00
Bev's babysitting money
7/23/2004
60.00
Bev's babysitting money
1/7/2005
50.00
Personal money deposit
3/4/2005
2,000.00
Sale of 4.25 cts. = 10 cts of garnets set in
14k yg (ring, pendant, and earrings) with .50
tcw of vs -vvs white diamonds perfectly
matched gemstones $2000; estimated retain
value $3000 Rembold purchased gem
stones on 12/05/03; set in spring of 2004
and sold on 01/05.
Total
$2,190
$2,190
Date
Cash
Deposit
6/11/2004
80.00
7/23/2004
60.00
1/7/2005
50.00
3/4/2005
2,000.00
Total
$2,190
Rembold, 05 -006
Page 18
77. Rembold and Beverly Rembold maintain a joint personal savings account with
Community Bank in Carmichaels, Pa, 15320.
a. Deposit information from Rembold's account spanning the time frame of
December 2003 through July 2005 documents cash deposits into Rembold's
account totaling $2,190.00 as shown below:
b. Rembold asserts that the cash deposits delineated above emanated from
various sources as follows:
78. At least one direct payment by Prosocial to Rembold in accordance with Rembold's
solicitation was made as follows:
a. Payment of $2,000 in cash on July 24, 2004.
b. Payment was made personally by Ellsworth in Charlottesville, Virginia, in the
form of twenty, one hundred dollar bills.
c. The money was provided to Rembold in a white envelope in Rembold's
motel room.
d. This money was paid as a result of Rembold's previously delineated
solicitation.
THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS RELATE TO REMBOLD'S USE OF JEFFERSON -
MORGAN SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUIPMENT, FACILITIES, AND TIME TO FURTHER
HIS OUTSIDE BUSINESS INTERESTS IN SERVING AS AN INSTRUCTOR FOR AN
ON -LINE UNIVERSITY.
Rembold, 05 -006
Page 19
79. Rembold was employed as the Superintendent of Jefferson - Morgan School District
(hereafter JMSD), Greene County, from August 21, 2001, to August 21, 2005.
80. Included in Rembold's JMSD employment contract was Section 4: Duties of
Superintendent which outlined Rembold's specific duties and responsibilities in part
as follows:
a. The Superintendent agrees to serve as chief administrator of the
District and as the chief executive officer of the board. Among his
duties and responsibilities, the Superintendent shall organize,
supervise, direct and assign teachers, administrative employees and
other employees of the District under his supervision; furnish
recommendations to the board on all matters having to do with the
selection, appointment, assignment, transfer, promotion,
organization, reorganization, reduction or termination of personnel
employed by the district; suggest rules, regulations and procedures
for the efficient and proper operation of the District; and perform all
other duties incidental to the office of District Superintendent as set
forth in the Code and such other duties as may be prescribed by the
Board from time to time.
b. The Superintendent shall devote his full time attention, energy, skill
and labor to his employment as District Superintendent during the
term of this agreement; provided however, that he may undertake
consultation work, speaking engagements, writing, lecturing, or other
professional duties and obligations as long as the District is informed
thereof and does not direct him to discontinue said activities.
81. Additionally included in Rembold's employment contract with JMSD was Section 9:
Compensation and Benefits which outlined Rembold's salary, cost of living
increases, raises, vacation days, retirement, holidays, personal days, sick leave,
etc.
a. Rembold was considered to be part of the JMSD administrative staff in his
position as superintendent.
1. Rembold's employment contract with JMSD designated Rembold as
the district's chief administrator.
82. Rembold was expected to generally be present and available in the district during
normal district administrative hours of 7:30am- 3:30pm.
a. Rembold routinely worked 7:30am- 3:30pm as the district superintendent.
b. As a salaried employee, Rembold was expected to work additional hours as
necessary (i.e. attending board meetings, conferences, etc.).
83. Rembold reported to the JMSD nine member Board of Directors in his position as
the district superintendent.
84. JMSD maintains and utilizes a policy manual in association with the day -to -day
operation of the district.
85. As a district employee and member of the administrative staff, Rembold was subject
to the policies set forth in the policy manual.
Rembold, 05 -006
Page 20
86. Policy No. 319 of the "Administrative Employees" section of the manual titled
"Outside Activities" and adopted by the board on October 21, 2002, mandates, in
part, the following:
a. Subsection 3 of the policy addresses delegation of responsibility and states,
The superintendent or designee shall disseminate guidelines so that
administrators may avoid situations in which personal interests, activities,
and associations may conflict with the interests of the district."
b. Subsection 4 of the policy addresses guidelines provided for the direction of
administrators that includes Sub - Subsection 3 which directs administrators,
"Do not use school time for outside activities when there is no valid reason to
be excused from assigned duties."
87. Policy No. 710 of the "Property" section of the manual titled Use of Facilities by
Staff" and adopted by JMSD on February 18, 2003 mandates, in part, the following:
a. Subsection 1 of the policy addresses authority and states, The Board
establishes that school equipment and facilities may not be used by district
staff for personal reasons, either on or off school property, without explicit
authorization or administrative permission."
88. JMSD maintains a computer /Internet use policy.
a. The computer /Internet use policy is not part of the policy manual.
b. The computer /Internet use policy is maintained in the office of the JMSD
Technology Coordinator.
c. Rembold was aware of the computer /Internet use policy.
89. The JMSD computer /Internet use policy sets forth guidelines and procedures, in
part, as follows:
a. The policy shall apply to all users - district students, faculty, and staff -of all
technological /telecommunications systems which are entered via equipment
and access lines located at the JMSD, or who obtain their access privileges
through association with the district.
b. All use of the district's technological /telecommunications systems are
intended to be used for educational purposes and to carry out the legitimate
business of the district.
1. Appropriate uses are noted as instruction, independent study,
authorized research, and the official work of the offices, departments,
recognized student organizations, and agencies of the district.
c. Use of the networks for commercial or for - profit purposes is prohibited.
d. Use of the networks for non -work or non - school related communications is
prohibited.
90. As superintendent of JMSD, Rembold maintained a private office in the
administrative offices located in the Jefferson - Morgan Jr /Sr High School building.
a. District equipment available to Rembold in his private office during his tenure
as superintendent included a Dell Optiplex GX 260 computer (Service Tag
Rembold, 05 -006
Page 21
No. 7N4DO21) among other equipment.
b. JMSD inventory records note the location of the computer as Rembold's
office as of July 23, 2003.
91. The JMSD computer represented under Service Tag No. 7N4DO21 was paid for via
JMSD General Fund Check No. 4284 dated November 30, 2002 in the amount of
$69,889.99 to Dell Marketing, LP.
a. The JMSD computer represented under Service Tag No. 7N4DO21 was one
of several computers purchased by JMSD via Check No. 4284.
b. The cost of the computer represented by Service Tag Number 7N4DO21
was $1,197.00.
92. The University of Phoenix is a private higher education institution whose mission is
to educate working adults to develop the knowledge and skills that will enable them
to achieve their professional goals, improve the productivity of their organizations,
and provide leadership and service to their communities.
a. The University of Phoenix offers continuing education through traditional
campus programs and via online programs through the Internet.
93. The University of Phoenix/University of Phoenix Online is a subsidiary of Apollo
Group, Inc.
a. Apollo Group, Inc., is a managing corporation for several higher education
institutions.
94. In or about February 2003, Rembold pursued employment with the University of
Phoenix through the Apollo Group as an on -line instructor.
95. Rembold used equipment of the JMSD in furtherance of his employment with the
University of Phoenix.
a. Rembold used JMSD fax machines to send resumes, transcripts, and
superintendent certificates to the University of Phoenix.
96. Rembold provided Apollo Group representatives his resume through facsimile
transmission utilizing the JMSD facsimile machine on February 10, 2003 at
approximately 11:04 am.
a. The facsimile transmission information documented at the top of Rembold's
resume documents, "Feb -10 -2003 11:04am from - JEFFERSON MORGAN
SCHOOL DISTRICT 724 - 883 - 4942..."
b. The facsimile transmission sent to Apollo Group representatives was six
pages in length
c. February 10, 2003, was a regular school day for JMSD.
d. Rembold did not obtain permission from the JMSD Board in accordance with
Policy No. 710 to utilize the district facsimile machine for personal use.
97. Rembold subsequently completed a University of Phoenix Faculty Application for
the Apollo Group on April 8, 2003.
a. The application was an on -line application.
Rembold, 05 -006
Page 22
1. Documented in the application was that inquiries of educational
institutions regarding transcripts would be made.
98. Rembold faxed Apollo Group representatives three Requests for Transcripts via the
JMSD facsimile machine on April 9, 2003 at approximately 11:34am.
a. The facsimile transmission information documented at the top of the page
documents, "Apr -09 -2003 11:34am from - JEFFERSON MORGAN SCHOOL
DISTRICT 724 - 883 - 4942..."
b. The facsimile transmission sent to Apollo Group representatives was two
pages in length
c. April 9, 2003, was a regular school day for JMSD.
d. Rembold did not obtain permission from the JMSD Board in accordance with
Policy No. 710 to utilize the district facsimile machine for personal use.
99. On or about May 8, 2003 Rembold completed an Outlook Express Proficiency Test
for the University of Phoenix.
a. The test is required to assure that new employees are capable of using
Outlook Express.
1. Proficiency in Outlook Express is necessary in performing the
functions of an online professor.
b. E -mail dated May 8, 2003 from James Finical, Internet Technical Support
Level 11, Resolution Center, University of Phoenix, to Chad Gentry verified
Rembold's proficiency in the use of Outlook express.
100. On May 9, 2003 at approximately 1:50 p.m., Rembold faxed Apollo Group
representatives correspondence dated July 8, 1993 from the Pennsylvania
Department of Education regarding Rembold's eligibility to hold a superintendent
position in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Rembold's current
Pennsylvania Department of Education Commission as Superintendent of JMSD via
the JMSD facsimile machine.
a. The facsimile transmission information documented at the top of the page
documents, "May -09 -2003 1:50pm from - JEFFERSON MORGAN SCHOOL
DISTRICT 724 - 883 - 4942..."
b. The facsimile transmission sent to Apollo Group representatives was three
pages in length
c. May 9, 2003, was a regular school day for JMSD.
d. Rembold did not obtain permission from the JMSD Board in accordance with
Policy No. 710 to utilize the district facsimile machine for personal use.
101. On May 16, 2003, Rembold was approved to teach classes as an online instructor
for the University of Phoenix as shown below:
Course /Cluster
CLUS- ADM500
ADM -590
ADM -591
Title
Administrative Practicum Internship Cluster
Administrative Internship Program
Administrative Internship Program
Date
Subject
9/4/2003
Brad's Bio
9/4/2003
Ben, Biography
9/4/2003
Elizabeth Copeland's Bio
9/4/2003
EDA 564: Course Text
9/4/2003
Friday, Sept 5 Assignment
9/5/2003
Scot's Biography
9/5/2003
Frederick's Bio
9/5/2003
BIO- Woodhouse
9/5/2003
Kat's Bio
9/5/2003
Questions For Chuck
9/5/2003
Week One Assignments
9/5/2003
Friday, Sept 5 Assignment
9/8/2003
For All Students: Mini - Lecture
9/8/2003
Mini Lecture - Yearly Format For Change
9/8/2003
Mini Lecture: Motivation
9/9/2003
1st Week Summary
9/9/2003
1st Week Discussion Question Stats
Rembold, 05 -006
Page 23
ADM -592 Internship on the Supervisor
ADM -590 A/B /C Administrative Internship
EDA -599 Practicum in School Administration
EDA -532 Human Relations and Organizational Behavior in Education
EDA -564 The Role and Functions of the Principal
102. Rembold entered into agreements with the Apollo Group to teach EDA -564, The
Role and Functions of the Principal, online for the University of Phoenix under
Contract No. 588470 and Contract No. 673393.
a. The dates of the class for Contract No. 588470 spanned from September 4,
2003 through October 15, 2003.
1. Contract No. 588470 was Rembold's first contract with the Apollo
Group.
b. The dates of the class for Contract No. 673393 spanned from January 8,
2004 through February 18, 2004.
103. Rembold routinely utilized the JMSD computer (Service Tag No. 7N4DO21) in his
private district office to facilitate his online instruction of EDA -564 during regular
district working days and hours.
a. Rembold sent and received messages regarding student biographies,
course questions, discussion questions, student feedback, grade
certifications, etc., from his JMSD district computer.
104. A forensic search of the Hard Drive (Serial No. TH- 02M920- 12567- 266 -0R7W)
installed in Rembold's district computer (Service Tag No. 7N4DO21) confirmed
Rembold's usage of the JMSD computer in his private district office a minimum of
one hundred fifty -six times between the dates of September 4, 2003 through
February 5, 2004 to facilitate his teaching of EDA -564, The Role and Functions of
the Principal, to his online classes as shown below:
Date
Subject
9/9/2003
Lecture 2
9/9/2003
Week One DQ 3: Learning Communities
9/9/2003
Week One DQ 3: Learning Communities
9/9/2003
Week One DQ 3: Learning Communities
9/9/2003
Week One DQ 3: Learning Communities
9/9/2003
Feedback For Students
9/10/2003
Week 2: DQ1 -Group Decision
9/10/2003
Week 2: DQ3- Site Based Management
9/10/2003
Week 2: DQ4- Strategic Planning
9/10/2003
Week 2: DQ5- Implementation
9/10/2003
Week 1 Feedback
9/10/2003
Week 2: DQ 3- Site Based Management
9/10/2003
Week 2: DQ 4- Strategic Planning
9/10/2003
Week 2: DQ 5- Implementation
9/10/2003
Questions For Chuck
9/10/2003
Questions For Chuck
9/10/2003
Week 2: Discussion Questions
9/10/2003
Week One Summary
9/26/2003
Week 3 Feedback
9/29/2003
Week 4: DQ3- Principal's Role- Danielle Blue
9/29/2003
Week 4: DQ3- Principal's Role -Brad Corey
9/30/2003
Mini Lectures
9/30/2003
Lecture 5
9/30/2003
Lecture 5
9/30/2003
Week 5: DQ2- Philosophy Of Guidance
9/30/2003
Week 5: DQ3- Multicultural Diversity Change
9/30/2003
Week 5: DQ4- Equitable Educational Opportunities
9/30/2003
Week 5: DQ5- Master Schedule
10/1/2003
Week 4: DQ3- Principal's Role
10/1/2003
Lecture 6
10/2/2003
Lecture 6
10/2/2003
Lecture 6
10/3/2003
Week 4 Feedback
10/3/2003
Week 4 Feedback
10/3/2003
Week 4 : Feedback
10/7/2003
Inadequate Assignment
10/7/2003
None
10/8/2003
Mini - Lecture: Goals And Objectives
10/13/2003
Week 5: Feedback
10/13/2003
Week 5: Feedback
10/13/2003
Week 5 Feedback
10/13/2003
Week 5: Feedback
10/13/2003
Week 5: Feedback
10/13/2003
Week 5 Feedback
10/13/2003
Week 5: Feedback
Rembold, 05 -006
Page 24
Date
Subject
10/13/2003
Week 5 Feedback
10/13/2003
Week 5: Feedback
10/13/2003
Week 5 Feedback
10/13/2003
Week 5: Feedback
10/13/2003
Week 5 Feedback
10/13/2003
An Offer You Can't Refuse
10/14/2003
Week 6: DQ2 Budget Cuts
10/14/2003
Week 6: DQ2 Budget Cuts -PACE
10/14/2003
Week 6: DQ2 Budget Cuts
10/14/2003
Week 6: DQ2: Budget Cuts
10/15/2003
Final Grade Summary Form
10/16/2003
Week 6 Feedback
10/16/2003
Week 6: Feedback
10/16/2003
Week 6: Feedback
10/16/2003
Week 6 Feedback
10/16/2003
Week 6: Feedback
10/16/2003
Week 6: Feedback
10/16/2003
Week 6 Feedback
10/17/2003
Week 6 Feedback
10/17/2003
Week 6: Feedback
10/17/2003
Week 6: Feedback
10/17/2003
Week 6 Feedback
10/17/2003
Week 6 Feedback
10/17/2003
Week 6: Feedback
10/17/2003
Week 6 Feedback
10/17/2003
Week 6: Feedback
10/20/2003
Grade Certification
10/20/2003
Grade Certification
10/20/2003
Grade Certification
10/20/2003
Grade Certification
10/20/2003
Grade Certification
10/20/2003
Grade Certification
10/20/2003
Grade Certification
10/20/2003
Grade Certification
10/21/2003
Grade Certification
10/21/2003
Grade Certification
10/21/2003
Grade Certification
1/7/2004
Week One DQ !: Distinguish School Leadership
1/7/2004
Week One DQ 2: Leadership Style and Qualities
1/7/2004
Week One DQ 3: Learning Communities
1/7/2004
Week One DQ 4: Performance Organization
1/7/2004
Week One DQ 5: Principal's Role
1/7/2004
Questions For Chuck
1/7/2004
Week One Discussion Questions
1/7/2004
Mini - Lecture Week One: Leadership Domains
Rembold, 05 -006
Page 25
Date
Subject
1/7/2004
Week One Mini - Lecture: Yearly Plan For Principals
1/7/2004
Week One Mini - Lecture: Motivation
1/7/2004
Week One: Summary (Due Date 1/14/04)
1/7/2004
Chuck's Biography
1/8/2004
Post Your Biography
1/8/2004
Post Your Biography
1/8/2004
Post Your Biography
1/8/2004
Peg Culhane's Bio
1/8/2004
Post Your Biography
1/8/2004
Post Your Biography
1/8/2004
Learning Team Assignments
1/8/2004
Week One: Questions For Chuck
1/8/2004
Learning Team Assignments
1/8/2004
Week One: Questions For Chuck
1/8/2004
Week One: Questions For Chuck
1/9/2004
Post Your Biography
1/9/2004
Week One: Questions For Chuck
1/9/2004
Course Syllabus And Course Text Verification
1/11/2004
Week One DQ 4: Performance Organization
1/12/2004
Moral Leader Question From The Lecture
1/13/2004
Participation Check
1/13/2004
Week 1: Summary
1/13/2004
Week 2: DQ 2
1/13/2004
Week 2: DQ 3
1/13/2004
Week 2: DQ 4
1/13/2004
Week 2: DQ 5
1/13/2004
Week 2: DQ 3
1/13/2004
Week 2: DQ 1
1/13/2004
Mini Lecture: Site -Based Management
1/13/2004
Mini - Lecture: Value -Added Education
1/13/2004
Mini Lecture: Site -Based Management Plan Reference
1/13/2004
Personal Vision Statement
1/13/2004
Week 2: Questions For Chuck
1/13/2004
Team A
1/14/2004
Send Your E -Mail Addresses
1/14/2004
Week 2: Questions For Chuck, Chelsea
1/22/2004
Change Bibliography
1/22/2004
Mini - Lectures: Conflict Styles: Week 3
1/23/2004
Mini - Lecture: Changes In Education
1/27/2004
Questions For Chuck: Week 4
1/27/2004
Week 3: Feedback For Chuck
1/27/2004
To All Students: Week 4 Assignments
1/27/2004
Week 4: Mini - Lecture /Standards
1/27/2004
Week 4 Mini - Lecture /Comprehensive Assessment Plan
1/27/2004
Week 4: Mini - Lecture /Strategic Plan
Rembold, 05 -006
Page 26
Check Date
Check Number
Gross Payment
Net Payment
09/25/03
336624
$884.40
$762.54
10/24/03
435315
200.00
179.06
11/10/03
458406
455.60
407.89
01/23/04
45125
884.40
759.53
03/10/04
111398
455.60
406.34
Total
$2,880.00
$2,515.36
Date
Subject
2/4/2004
Week 5 Mini Lecture: Master Schedule
2/5/2004
Master Schedule /Thoughts
2/5/2004
Sample School Improvement Plan -An
Model
Elementary
2/5/2004
Week 4 Feedback
Rembold, 05 -006
Page 27
a. The actual number of times Rembold utilized the district computer in his
private district office to facilitate in instruction of online courses is in excess
of one hundred fifty -six times.
1. The forensic examination of the Hard Drive revealed a multitude of e-
mail communications associated with Rembold's online instruction
which did not detail the date /time sent or received and were not
documented here.
b. All specific dates noted above were regular working days for JMSD
Administrative Staff.
105. Rembold received five payments from the Apollo Group, Inc totaling $2,515.36 for
services provided as an online instructor for the University of Phoenix regarding
Contract No. 588470 and Contract No. 673393, during the timeframe that he used
the JMSD computer for his University of Phoenix employment, as shown below:
a. All payments received were deposited into Rembold's account at Community
Bank.
106. At no time during Rembold's pursuit of employment or during his actual employment
with Apollo Group did Rembold inform the JMSD board of his secondary
employment as required per his employment contract.
a. Rembold did not disclose his intention to obtain secondary employment or
his actual employment to the board at any executive session or regular
meeting.
107. At no time while employed with the Apollo Group did Rembold request or receive
permission from the board to utilize the JMSD computer in his private district office
during or after regular school hours to facilitate his instruction of online classes for
the University of Phoenix.
a. Rembold never advised any member of the JMSD Board of Directors that he
would be utilizing district equipment on district time in furtherance of his
private interests.
108. Rembold's use of JMSD technology equipment during regular school days and
regular administrative hours to facilitate his instruction of online classes for the The
University of Phoenix in circumvention of JMSD policies and requirements of his
own employment contract resulted in a personal financial gain to Rembold in the
Rembold, 05 -006
Page 28
amount of $2,515.36.
THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS RELATE TO REMBOLD'S MISAPPROPRIATION OF A
COMPUTER AND RELATED ACCESSORIES ORDERED BY THE GREENE COUNTY
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (IDA) FOR HIS OWN PERSONAL USE
109. Rembold served as a member of the IDA Board of Directors from approximately July
1996 through June 2004.
110. From approximately May 2002 through June 2005, Menhart was responsible for
computer /technology concerns for the IDA.
a. Menhart addressed the needs not only of the IDA office but also various
needs associated with the childcare program and the Comm -Tech centers.
111. The IDA employed various individuals in Information Technology positions to assist
Menhart including Cody Kuhns, Scott McCracken, Helio Gomez, and Adam
Swinchock.
112. On July 25, 2003, the IDA placed an order with Dell Marketing, LP, (hereafter Dell)
for the purchase of seven computer systems in the amount of $10,997.00
a.
b.
The Purchase Order Number associated with the invoice was 1422072203.
The Order Number associated with the purchase was 416755016.
1. The order number and the invoice number are the same number.
113. The computer systems purchased were complete systems including mini - towers,
hard drives, keyboards, monitors, floppy disk drives, software programs, mouses,
digital sound cards, speakers, media, zip drives, and service agreements.
a. At that time, the systems purchased were high end regarding performance
and capabilities.
b. The computers were purchased for distribution to the various Information
Technology employees at the IDA and the 21 CCLC.
c. The cost of each system was $1,571.00.
114. The Service Tag Numbers of the seven computers associated with the order were
J33M531, 243M531, 443M531, 543M531, 743M531, 943M531, and B43M531 as
documented on the invoice.
a. The invoice documented a "Ship To" address of Carmichaels Area
Elementary, 225 North Vine St, Carmichaels, PA 15320.
1. The computers were shipped to Carmichaels Area Elementary School
as a result of the order being "piggybacked" with an order from
Carmichaels Area Elementary School.
115. On or about August 8, 2003 a representative from the IDA contacted Dell and
reported that the original order shipped under Order Number 416755016 had not
been received.
a. Dell recorded the shipment as "Lost" at that time.
Rembold, 05 -006
Page 29
116. On August 25, 2003, Dell issued the IDA an exchange order to replace the original
order which was reportedly not received.
a. The Purchase Order Number associated with the invoice was 1422072203X.
b. The Order Number associated with the purchase was 448860172.
1. The order number and the invoice number are the same number.
c. An Exchange Number of 36964305 was assigned to the invoice.
117. The Service Tag Numbers of the seven computers associated with the exchange
order were BOJDC31, FOJDC31, 21JDC31, 41JDC31, 81JDC31, FIJDC31, and
22JDC31 as documented on the invoice.
a The exchange invoice documented a "Ship To" address of Burke Manhart,
Greene County IDA, 225 North Vine St, Carmichaels, Pa 15320.
1. Menhart's name was spelled incorrectly on the exchange invoice.
b. The computers were shipped via Eagle Global Logistics Next Day Delivery.
118. The IDA issued Check Number 5039 dated August 26, 2003 to Dell Computers in
the amount of $83,738.00 from its General Fund Account at Community Bank.
a. Check Number 5039 was written in association with payment of several
separate Dell invoices (Invoice Numbers 416755016, 416755750,
416755594, 420708506, and 422036864).
b. The memo section of Check Number 5039 documented, "Childcare."
119. All checks issued by the IDA from August 19, 2003 through September 16, 2003
were reviewed at the September 17, 2003, regular IDA board meeting.
a. Check Number 5039 in the amount of $83,738.00 to Dell Computers was
documented on the bill list.
b. Rembold was present at the meeting.
120. At the September 17, 2003 IDA meeting, a motion was made by Board Member
Jerome Bartley, seconded by Simatic to approve the monthly checks.
a. The motion passed 4 -0 with no abstention by Rembold.
1. Rembold was one of the four board members present.
121. The computers shipped with the exchange order were replicas of the computers
originally ordered in terms of model numbers, type, capabilities, accessories, etc.
a. Current Dell records continue to classify Service Tag Numbers J33M531,
243M531, 443M531, 543M531, 743M531, 943M531, and B43M531 as
"Lost."
122. The computers associated with both the original invoice and the exchange invoice
were ultimately received at Carmichaels Area School District.
Rembold, 05 -006
Page 30
a. Menhart, Kuhns, and Bryan [sic] Rembold removed one of the two orders
from Carmichaels Area School District prior to the start of the 2003 -2004
school year.
1. Bryan [sic] Rembold was employed at the 21 CCLC at that time.
b. Menhart and Scott McCracken removed the remaining order from
Carmichaels Area School District during or about April /May 2004.
123. The computers included in both the original order and the exchange order were
taken to the 21 CCLC office for unpacking and inspection after removal from
Carmichaels Area School District.
a. The IDA did not pay for or return the extra order of computers to Dell upon
receipt.
b. Menhart distributed the computers for use from the 21 CCLC office.
124. Three computers from the exchange order (Service Tag Numbers BOJDC31,
41 JDC31, AND F1 JDC31) were eventually provided to JMSD for use.
a. The computer represented by Service Tag Number BOJDC31 was utilized by
Connie Palfrey, JMSD Technology Administrator at that time, in Palfrey's
JMSD office.
b. The computer represented by Service Tag Number 41 JDC31 was utilized by
Cody Haden, JMSD Computer Technician at that time, in JMSD's
Technology Office.
c. The computer represented by Service Tag Number F1 JDC31 was damaged
and was stored at the JMSD Technology Office.
125. Rembold was employed as the JMSD Superintendent during the period of time
when both orders were received.
a. No other Greene County school districts were allocated any of the
computers received.
126. Three additional computers from the exchange order (Service Tag Numbers
FOJDC31, 21 JDC31, and 81 JDC31) were either distributed to IDA employees for
use at the IDA office or maintained in storage.
a. The computer represented by Service Tag Number FOJDC31 was utilized by
Chappel in the IDA office.
b. The computer represented by Service Tag Number 21JDC31 was
maintained in storage.
c. The computer represented by Service Tag Number 81 JDC31 was utilized by
Nancy Wrick, IDA Administrative Assistant.
127. The final computer from the exchange order (Service Tag Number 22JDC31) was
issued to Scott McCracken for use in association with his IDA job duties at
Waynesburg High School.
a. Scott McCracken ultimately transported the computer to his home for use in
Rembold, 05 -006
Page 31
association with his IDA job duties.
b. Scott McCracken returned the computer to the 21 CCLC office when his
employment with the IDA ended.
128. Six of the seven computers associated with the original order shipped by Dell were
distributed to IDA employees or to JMSD for use upon removal from Carmichaels
Area School District.
a. Five of the seven computers (Service Tag Numbers 243M531, 443M531,
543M531, 943M531, and B43M531) were distributed either to IDA
employees for use at the IDA office or maintained in storage.
b. One additional computer, represented by Service Tag Number 743M531,
was provided to JMSD for use.
129. Rembold ultimately took possession of the final computer, represented by Service
Tag Number J33M531, from the original order and maintained it at his then
personal residence of 1841 Bristoria Road, Holbrook, Pa 15341.
a. Rembold utilized the computer for his own personal use.
b. Rembold did not issue payment to the IDA or Dell prior to or after taking
possession of the computer.
c. Rembold was able to obtain possession of the computer as a result of his
position as IDA Board President.
130. None of the remaining IDA board members had an IDA computer at their residence
for professional or personal use.
a. At no time did Rembold receive permission from the IDA board to maintain or
utilize an IDA computer at his residence.
131. Rembold failed to return the computer to the IDA after his resignation as an IDA
board member on June 30, 2004.
a. Rembold maintained possession of the computer at his residence from at
least May 2004 through late March 2005.
b. On March 23, 2005, Rembold made statements to a Commission
Investigator that the computer represented via Service Tag Number
J33M531 was his personal computer.
132. Rembold was employed as a professor with the Apollo Group, Inc. to teach classes
online for The University of Phoenix during the time that he maintained possession
of the computer.
133. Rembold entered into agreements with the Apollo Group to teach EDA -532, Human
Relations and Organizational Behavior in Education, online under Contract
Numbers 829656, 884928, 927961, and 995570.
a. The class date spans associated with the above - listed contracts were as
follows:
Contract No. Course ID Start Date End Date
Check Date
Check Number
Gross Payment
Net Payment
07/23/04
301657
$884.40
$759.54
09/10/04
371653
555.60
495.53
10/08/04
411692
884.40
759.53
11/24/04
481640
455.60
406.34
12/22/04
521301
884.40
759.54
02/25/05
81740
455.60
406.34
03/24/05
121624
924.00
791.72
05/10/05
185758
1,400.00
1,159.07
Total
$6,444.00
$5,537.61
Description
Value /Wages
Misappropriation of computer, speakers,
keyboard
and
$1,392.00
Wages Received for Online Instruction
$5,537.61
Total
$6,929.61
Rembold, 05 -006
Page 32
829656 EDA -532 07/15/04 08/25/04
884928 EDA -532 09/30/04 11/10/04
927961 EDA -532 12/02/04 01/26/04
995570 EDA -532 03/10/05 04/20/05
134. A forensic search of the Hard Drive (Serial No. 3JTOWNS4) installed in the
computer that Rembold took possession of (Service Tag No. J33M531) revealed
that Rembold utilized the computer consistently between May 2004 and March 2005
to facilitate his instruction of EDA -532, Human Relations and Organizational
Behavior in Education, to his University of Phoenix online classes and for other
personal purposes.
a. Rembold routinely sent and received messages detailing student
biographies, course questions, discussion questions, student feedback,
grade certifications, etc., in association with his University of Phoenix online
classes.
135. Rembold received eight payments from the Apollo Group, Inc. totaling $5,537.61 for
services provided as an online instructor for the University of Phoenix regarding
Contract Numbers 829656, 884928, 927961, and 995570 as shown below:
a. All payments received were deposited into Rembold's account at Community
Bank.
136. Rembold's realized a total financial gain of $6,929.61 when he took possession of a
computer ordered by the IDA for his own personal use including but not limited to
utilizing the computer to facilitate his instruction of online classes for the Apollo
Group through The University of Phoenix which resulted in payment for instruction
provided.
THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS RELATE TO REMBOLD'S PARTICIPATION IN
DISCUSSIONS AND DECISIONS OF THE GREENE COUNTY INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TO AWARD A CONTRACT IN EXCESS OF $500
WITHOUT AN OPEN AND PUBLIC PROCESS TO BRYAN [SIC] REMBOLD FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF A WEBSITE FOR EVERGREENE TECHNOLOGY PARK
137. Evergreene Technology Park is a 248 acre industrial park located adjacent to the
Line Item
Amount
Salaries & Fringes
$5,000.00
Training & Technical
Assistance
2,500.00
Promotion /Public
Relations /Advertising
8,500.00
Rembold, 05 -006
Page 33
Greene County Airport.
a. The purpose of Evergreene Technology Park is to attract and create new
businesses for Greene County.
138. Funding for the development of Evergreene Technology Park has been obtained
primarily through the receipt of state and federal grants including grants from the
Infrastructure Development Program, the Redevelopment Capital Assistance
Program, and the Business In Our Sites Program.
139. The IDA was the initial driving force for the development of Evergreene Technology
Park.
140. The Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED)
provides annual grants through the Local Economic Development Assistance
Program (LEDA) to industrial development organizations to plan and promote
programs to stimulate the establishment of new or enlarged industrial, commercial,
service, or manufacturing enterprises within each county of Pennsylvania.
141. Each county government designates by resolution one industrial development
organization to make application to DCED to receive available grant funds.
a. The IDA is the current designated applicant for Greene County and has
been so from at least 2000 through 2005.
142. Deborah Barrett, Program Administrator, DCED, provided correspondence dated
July 26, 2000 to Rembold in his capacity as the President of the IDA regarding the
LEDA Program grant available to the IDA for fiscal year 2000 -2001.
a. Barrett indicated in the correspondence that the IDA was eligible for a grant
in the amount of $17,438.00.
143. Chappel completed the DCED Single Application for Assistance for LEDA grant
funds on or about September 20, 2000.
a. The application noted the IDA as the applicant /sponsor.
b. The application noted Rembold as the Chief Executive Officer /President of
the IDA.
c. The application noted Chappel as the contact individual for the grant.
1. Chappel developed all of the information and figures incorporated
into the application.
144. The application documented the grant funds to be utilized for economic
development /revitalization with a project budget specific to grant funds obtained as
shown below:
Office Equipment
1,000.00
Audit
438.00
Total
$17,438.00
Rembold, 05 -006
Page 34
a. The entire $17, 438.00 amount was allocated towards the IDA's operational
costs /working capital.
b. Rembold signed the application in his position as the IDA president on or
about September 20, 2000.
145. Accompanying the application was correspondence from Chappel to DCED dated
September 20, 2000 regarding the 2000 -2001 LEDA grant.
a. Noted in the correspondence was that the $8,500.00 set aside for promotion,
public relations, and advertising would be utilized towards a
marketing /advertising campaign to attract interest in a new technology park.
146. Correspondence dated October 10, 2000, from DCED, to Rembold verified the
approval of a LEDA grant to the IDA in the amount of $17,438.00 for the 2000 -2001
fiscal year.
147. The IDA subsequently received a contract represented via M.E. No. /Contract No.:
20- 105 -0026 from DCED for the Local Economic Development Assistance Grant
Program.
a. The contract specified the grant amount of $17,438.00.
148. At the October 25, 2000 regular meeting of the IDA board, a motion was made to
authorize Rembold and Board Member Sheila Barger, IDA board
Secretary /Treasurer, to sign the 2000 -2001 LEDA grant contract.
a. Rembold was present at the meeting.
b. Individuals making and seconding the motion are not documented in the
minutes.
c. The motion passed unanimously with no abstentions noted.
149. Rembold signed Contract No.: 20- 105 -0026 on October 26, 2000, in his capacity as
the President of the IDA board.
a. The contract was signed by DCED Deputy Secretary Emily White on
November 8, 2000.
150. The IDA maintains its General Account at Community Bank in Waynesburg, Pa.
a. The $17,438.00 grant amount was deposited into the IDA's General Account
at Community Bank on December 27, 2000.
151. At the December 20, 2000, regular meeting of the IDA board, discussion occurred
regarding the development of a website for Evergreene Technology Park.
a. Rembold was present at the December 20, 2000 IDA meeting.
b. Rembold recommended his son for the development of the Evergreene
Technology Park website.
Rembold, 05 -006
Page 35
1 Bryan [sic] Rembold had an educational background in technology at
that time.
152. A motion was made and seconded at the December 20, 2000 IDA meeting by
Simatic and Barger respectively to enter into a contract with Bryan [sic] Rembold
not to exceed $500.00 to Register Evergreene Technology Park as a website.
a. The motion passed unanimously, Rembold was present.
b. No abstention by Rembold is documented in the minutes.
153. A subsequent motion was made and seconded at the December 20, 2000 IDA
meeting by Simatic and Barger respectively to offer a contract to Bryan [sic]
Rembold not to exceed $3,000.00 for the creation of a website for Evergreene
Technology Park.
a. The motion passed unanimously.
b. No abstention by Rembold is documented in the minutes.
154. Bryan [sic] Rembold submitted an invoice dated March 20, 2001 to the IDA for work
completed on the Evergreene Technology Park Website and other miscellaneous
costs as shown below:
Completion of one -third of work on Evergreenepark.net Website $1,000.00
Registration of four domain names for a five -year period:
* www.evergreenepark.net 120.00
* www.meadowridgepark.net 120.00
* www.paisleyindustrialpark.net 120.00
* www.greenecountyida.net 120.00
Total $1,480.00
a. The $480.00 associated with the registration of domain names was issued to
Bryan [sic] Rembold as a reimbursement.
1. Bryan [sic] Rembold initially utilized personal funds to register the
domain names.
155. The invoice submitted by Bryan [sic] Rembold to the IDA directed that the check be
issued in the name of King's Bridge, Inc. as shown below:
King's Bridge, Inc.
Information Technology Division
Bryan [sic] Rembold
1841 Bristoria Road
Holbrook, Pa 15341
a. Although in existence at that time, King's Bridge, Inc., did not have an
Information Technology Division.
1. Kings Bridge is a company where Rembold was an officer and
director and to which Rembold directed West Greene School District
funds to perform certain services to the school district when Rembold
was employed as that district's superintendent.
Rembold, 05 -006
Page 36
2. Rembold also received in excess of $26,000 from King's Bridge, Inc.
3. Rembold was found in violation of the Ethics Law and fined by the
Ethics Commission for his actions.
b. 1841 Bristoria Road, Holbrook, Pa 15341, was Rembold's residence at that
time.
1. Bryan [sic] Rembold resided with Rembold at that time.
156. Rembold was associated with King's Bridge, Inc., a Virginia corporation, from at
least July 1983 up to and including July 2001.
a. Rembold served as an initial director of the corporation along with R. Edgar
Thacker, was formally listed as a director on the corporation papers with the
Virginia Corporations Commission until 2001 and served as a
consultant /contractor providing training programs, research, and other
services.
b. King's Bridge, Inc., was not involved in the development of websites for
business marketing purposes.
157. The IDA issued check number 3049, dated April 30, 2001, in the amount of
$1,480.00 to King's Bridge, Inc., for services performed by Bryan [sic] Rembold.
a. The memo section of the check noted "LEDA Grant."
b. Bryan [sic] Rembold negotiated the check at Community Bank on or about
May 8, 2001.
158. At the May 16, 2001 regular meeting of the IDA board a motion was made by
Barger, seconded by Simatic, to review and approve all checks issued from March
30, 2000 through April 30, 2000.
a.
A listing of all checks issued was provided for review.
1. Check No. 3049 payable to King's Bridge from LEDA Grant fund for
Marketing /Advertising in the amount of $1,480.00 was documented on
the bill list.
b. Rembold was present at the meeting.
c. The motion passed with no abstention by Rembold.
THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS RELATE TO REMBOLD'S FAILURE TO FILE A
STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL INTERESTS FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2003 AND
REMBOLD'S FAILURE TO DISCLOSE CREDITORS AND SOURCES OF INCOME ON
STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL INTERESTS FILED FOR CALENDAR YEARS 2002
AND 2004 IN HIS POSITION AS A MEMBER OF THE GREENE COUNTY
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS
159. Statement of Financial Interests filing requirements for public officials and public
employees are mandated by Section 1104 of the State Ethics Act.
a. Rembold was required to file Statements of Financial Interests by May 1St
annually in his position as a member of the IDA Board of Directors.
Rembold, 05 -006
Page 37
160. A review of Statements of Financial Interests on file at the IDA office conducted on
March 4, 2005 revealed Statements of Financial Interests on file for Rembold
regarding calendar years 1997 through 2002.
b. All of Rembold's Statements of Financial Interest on file were dated February
6, 2002 Amended with the exception of Rembold's 2002 calendar year form.
1. Rembold's 2002 calendar year form was dated April 28, 2002.
c. Rembold's 2004 calendar year form was subsequently obtained on July 5,
2004.
1. Rembold mistakenly dated the form with his date of birth instead of
the date the form was completed.
161. Rembold failed to file a Statement of Financial Interests for calendar year 2003 in
his position as a member of the IDA Board of Directors.
a. No 2003 calendar year form was on file with the IDA when the review was
conducted.
162. Information required to be reported on Statements of Financial Interests is set forth
under Section 1105 of the State Ethics Act.
a. Required disclosures on Statements of Financial Interest include the name
and address of each creditor to whom is owed in excess of $6,500.00 and
the respective interest rate.
b. Additionally required disclosures on Statements of Financial Interest include
the name and address of any direct or indirect sources of income totaling
$1,300.00 or more.
163. Rembold did not disclose information regarding creditors and direct or indirect
sources of income on his Statements of Financial Interests filed for calendar years
2002 and 2004.
a. Rembold failed to disclose National City Bank as a creditor when Rembold
owed National City Bank in excess of $6,500.00 at various points during
those calendar years.
1. Rembold maintains a Home Equity Variable Rate Credit Line Account
with National City Bank with a credit line of $85,000.00.
2. The account was opened in January 2002.
b. Rembold failed to disclose income from the Greene County Vo -Tech School
totaling $1,608.24 and $1,646.94 for calendar years 2002 and 2004
respectively.
1. Rembold was issued a monthly stipend from the Greene County Vo-
Tech School for his service as Superintendent of Record for the Vo-
Tech.
2. Rembold served as Superintendent of Record for the Vo -Tech from
July 2002 through June 2004.
THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS RELATE TO REMBOLD'S FAILURE TO DISCLOSE
Rembold, 05 -006
Page 38
CREDITORS ON STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL INTERESTS FILED FOR CALENDAR
YEARS 2002, 2003, AND 2004; REMBOLD'S FAILURE TO DISCLOSE SOURCES OF
INCOME ON HIS STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL INTERESTS FILED FOR THE 2004
CALENDAR YEAR; AND REMBOLD'S INTENTIONAL BACKDATING OF HIS
STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL INTERESTS FOR THE 2000 CALENDAR YEAR TO
GIVE THE IMPRESSION THAT IT HAD BEEN FILED IN A TIMELY MANNER IN HIS
POSITION AS THE SUPERINTENDENT OF JEFFERSON - MORGAN SCHOOL
DISTRICT.
164. Statement of Financial Interests filing requirements for public officials and public
employees are mandated by Section 1104 of the State Ethics Act.
a. Rembold was required to file Statements of Financial Interests by May 1St
annually in his position as the superintendent of JMSD.
165. Rembold filed forms with JMSD in his position as superintendent as shown below:
Calendar Year Filing Date
"13) Additions
- -- Amended 2/4/04
2000 08/22/01
2001 04/28/02
2002 12/13/02
2003 02/04/04
2004 01/05/05
a. Forms for calendar years 2000, 2001, and 2002 have "Post -it" notes affixed
to the back of the forms which documents the following:
(1) President Greene County Industrial Development Authority
(2) President Evergreene Technology Park, Inc.
(3) Member CAPE"
166. Information required to be reported on Statements of Financial Interests is set forth
under Section 1105 of the State Ethics Act.
a. Required disclosures on Statements of Financial Interest include the name
and address of each creditor to whom is owed in excess of $6,500.00 and
the respective interest rate.
b. Additionally required disclosures on Statements of Financial Interest include
the name and address of any direct or indirect sources of income totaling
$1,300.00 or more.
167. Rembold did not disclose information regarding creditors on his Statements of
Financial Interests filed for calendar years 2002, 2003, and 2004; and did not
disclose direct or indirect sources of income on his Statements of Financial
Interests filed for calendar years 2004.
a. Rembold failed to disclose National City Bank as a creditor when Rembold
owed National City Bank in excess of $6,500.00 at various points during the
2002, 2003, and 2004 calendar years.
b. Rembold failed to disclose income from the Greene County Vo -Tech School
Rembold, 05 -006
Page 39
totaling $1,646.94 for calendar year 2004.
168. Rembold was required to complete and file a Statement of Financial Interests in
2001 for the 2000 calendar year in his position as JMSD superintendent.
a. Rembold began employment as the JMSD superintendent in August 2001
(See Finding No. 90 [sic]).
169. Rembold's' [sic] 2000 calendar year Statement of Financial Interests form
documents a revision date of SEC -1 REV. 01/02.
a. Forms with the revision date of SEC -1 REV. 01/02 were printed by Digital Ink
and mailed by Eagle Progressive.
b. The mailing date associated with SEC -1 REV. 01/02 forms was
approximately December 14, 2001.
170. Rembold's 2000 calendar year Statement of Financial Interests is dated August 22,
2001 (See Findings No. 191 [sic]).
a. SEC -1 REV. 01/02 forms had not been mailed as of August 22, 2001.
b. Rembold backdated his Statement of Financial Interests filed with JMSD for
calendar year 2000 giving the impression that form had been timely filed.
III. DISCUSSION:
At all times relevant to this matter, the Respondent, Charles Rembold ( "Rembold "),
has been a public official /employee 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 Rembold violated Sections 1103(a),(c),(f); 1104(a); and
1105(b)(4),(5) of the Ethics Act when he participated as a Greene County Industrial
Development Authority (IDA) Board Member in making recommendations resulting in a
contract being awarded to Prosocial Solutions when he had a reasonable expectation that
he would receive payments from Prosocial; when he made recommendations to award a
contract to Prosocial based on his understanding that he would solicit, accept, or receive a
portion of any funds paid to Prosocial by the IDA; when he took possession of computer
equipment from the IDA for his personal use; when he participated in the award of an IDA
contract in excess of $500.00 to his son Brian Rembold for the development of a website
without an open and public process; when he failed to file a Statement of Financial
Interests (SFI) for the 2003 calendar year by May 1, 2004; when he failed to disclose
sources of income and creditors on SFIs filed for the 2002 and 2004 calendar years; and
when as Superintendent of the Jefferson - Morgan School District (JMSD) he used school
district equipment, facilities, material, and time to further his outside business interests as
a compensated instructor for an on -line university; when he failed to disclose creditors on
SFIs filed for the 2002, 2003, and 2004 calendar years and failed to disclose sources of
income on the SFI filed for the 2004 calendar year; and when he backdated a SFI filed for
the 2000 calendar year giving the impression that it had been timely filed.
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:
Rembold, 05 -006
Page 40
Section 1102. Definitions
"Conflict" or "conflict of interest." Use by a public
official or public employee of the authority of his office or
employment or any confidential information received through
his holding public office or employment for the private
pecuniary benefit of himself, a member of his immediate family
or a business with which he or a member of his immediate
family is associated. "Conflict" or "conflict of interest" does not
include an action having a de minimis economic impact or
which affects to the same degree a class consisting of the
general public or a subclass consisting of an industry,
occupation or other group which includes the public official or
public employee, a member of his immediate family or a
business with which he or a member of his immediate family is
associated.
65 Pa.C.S. § 1102.
Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act prohibits a public official /public employee from
using the authority of public office /employment or confidential information received by
holding such a public position for the private pecuniary benefit of the public official /public
employee himself, any member of his immediate family, or a business with which he or a
member of his immediate family is associated.
Section 1103. Restricted Activities
(c) No public official, public employee or nominee or
candidate for public office shall solicit or accept, anything of
monetary value, including a gift, loan, political contribution,
reward, or promise of future employment based on any
understanding of that public official, public employee or
nominee that the vote, official action, or judgment of the public
official or public employee or nominee or candidate for public
office would be influenced thereby.
65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(c).
Section 1103(c) of the Ethics Act quoted above provides in part that a public
official /public employee shall not solicit or accept anything of monetary value based upon
any understanding that his vote, official action or judgment would be influenced thereby.
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,
Rembold, 05 -006
Page 41
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.
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 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.
(4) The name and address of each creditor to
whom is owed in excess of $6,500 and the interest rate
thereon. However, loans or credit extended between
Rembold, 05 -006
Page 42
members of the immediate family and mortgages
securing real property which is the principal or
secondary residence of the person filing shall not be
included.
(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.
65 Pa.C.S. §§ 1105(b)(4), (5)
Section 1105(b)(4) of Act 93 of 1998 requires that every public official /public
employee and candidate list the name, address and interest rate as to any creditor who is
owed more than $6,500.
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.
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.
USE OF IDA GRANT
Rembold served as a member of the IDA from July 1996 until June of 2004 when
the County Commissioners sought his resignation due to the negative publicity from
Rembold, Order 1303.
In that the IDA functions for economic development in Greene County through the
creation, attraction and retention of business, Rembold routinely pursued available grants
for which IDA served as fiscal agent or administrator. The 21 Century Community
Learning Center's Program (Program) typically pursued grants for the IDA. The Program
was established by Congress for the purpose of awarding grants to rural and inner city
public schools. For Greene County, the Program is an educational partnership coalition
that provides educational, health, social services, cultural and recreational opportunities
for students.
Linda McCracken, the Program Director, assisted Rembold with the filing of grant
applications. In 2002, IDA in conjunction with the Program, the Greene County Education
Consortium, Greene County Technology Consortium, PBS Literacy Link, and the Childcare
Program of Greene County pursued grant funds from U.S. Department of Education for the
development of technology centers.
In June of 2002, Rembold, as IDA President, submitted an application to the U.S.
Department of Education for the Greene County Community Technology Center Program
seeking a $300,000 grant. After Rembold received notification that the U.S. Department of
Education would not fund the application, he submitted a second application in July of
2003 to the U.S. Department of Education for the Greene County Community Technology
Center Program for funding in the amount of $497,000. In October of 2003, the IDA
received notice that the U.S. Department of Education once again did not recommend
funding.
Rembold, 05 -006
Page 43
The IDA submitted a request to the Mellon Foundation in January 2003 for a grant.
In May of 2003, the Mellon Foundation issued a $500,000 grant to the IDA. The purpose
of the grant was to provide support for two years for child care centers and after - school
tutoring programs. A representative of the Mellon Foundation contacted the Claude
Worthington Benedum Foundation (Benedum Foundation) to determine if it would assist in
funding the project.
In the Fall of 2003, the IDA sought grants through the Benedum Foundation that
provides funding for education, work force development, economic development, health
and human services and community development in West Virginia and Southwestern
Pennsylvania. In July of 2003, Rembold participated in a meeting with James Denova, a
Senior Program Officer for the Benedum Foundation. Subsequently, in October of 2003,
Denova again met with Rembold, McCracken and Menhart, the IDA Director of Special
Projects, to further discuss the grant from the Benedum Foundation to fund the Community
Technology Centers.
In November 2003, the Benedum Foundation determined that a grant in the amount
of $260,000 would be awarded to the IDA. In December of 2003, Denova, in a meeting
with the Benedum Foundation Board of Trustees, presented a program write up that
summarized the details of the IDA project. The presentation by Denova also included
funding of $30,000 for an evaluation of the program. After the Benedum Foundation
Board of Trustees confirmed the approval of the $260,000 grant to the IDA, Denova
informed McCracken of the grant's approval.
Stephen Ellsworth (Ellsworth) is the sole owner and operator of a consulting
business, Prosocial. Prosocial provides various services, including grant acquisition and
project implementation, management and evaluation. Ellsworth maintains both a
professional and social relationship with Rembold. Ellsworth developed a Plus Three
Program that was provided to Kings Bridge, Inc., a business with which Rembold is
associated, for utilization in the People Utilizing Leadership Skills Effectively (PULSE)
program. Rembold utilized Ellsworth as a compensated facilitator at various PULSE
programs.
Ellsworth was aware as early as July of 2003 that Rembold would utilize Prosocial
as an evaluator for future grants. Rembold set up a scheme whereby Prosocial would be
utilized as an outside consultant vis -a -vis the Benedum grant. The $30,000 paid to
Prosocial would be divided among Rembold, McCracken and Ellsworth. To that end,
Ellsworth was provided with information from Rembold (through McCracken) that Prosocial
would be the evaluator for the project. Rembold and Menhart wanted the evaluations to
be done quarterly and be both formative and summative. It was proposed that Ellsworth
would invoice the IDA directly for services performed and receive five payments of $6,000
each.
After McCracken met with Rembold, McCracken conveyed to Ellsworth how
Rembold directed the division of the funds. The $30,000 would be divided up according to
Rembold's instruction with Rembold, McCracken and Ellsworth each receiving $9,000. As
to the remaining $3,000, Thacker, an associate of Rembold in King's Bridge, Inc., would
receive $1,500. As to the remainder, $600 would be paid to Prosocial and $900 would be
allocated for taxes. Ellsworth agreed to participate in the arrangement and return funds to
Rembold as per an e-mail of December 12, 2003.
The Benedum Foundation issued a check in the amount of $260,000 to the IDA in
December of 2003. Shortly thereafter, Rembold recommended to the IDA Board that
Prosocial serve as the grant evaluator. When Rembold recommended Prosocial, one of
the IDA Board Members asked if any of the Board Members had information about
Prosocial. Rembold responded that Prosocial had expertise as an evaluator.
Rembold, 05 -006
Page 44
The IDA Board unanimously voted to appoint Prosocial as the grant evaluator for a
fee not to exceed $30,000 with Prosocial providing quarterly reports. The motion was
approved based upon Rembold's recommendation of Prosocial. The motion passed
without any abstention by Rembold. Prosocial did not submit quarterly reports to the IDA.
Ellsworth only provided an Evaluation Framework, Interim Evaluation and Summative
Evaluation. The information utilized by Ellsworth in compiling the Interim Evaluation and
Summative Evaluation was provided by McCracken.
Ellsworth submitted five invoices totaling $26,000 to the IDA requesting payment for
services rendered as to the evaluation of the project funded by the Benedum Foundation
grant, the details of which appear in Fact Finding 65. Between March of 2004 and April
2005, the IDA approved payments and issued four checks to Prosocial totaling $24,000.
See, Fact Finding 66. Rembold participated in voting to approve one of the checks. After
Rembold resigned as an IDA Board Member on June 30, 2004, the IDA did not approve
payment of the fifth invoice in the amount of $2,000 from Prosocial.
The four checks that Prosocial received from the IDA were deposited into a
Prosocial account. Thereafter, Prosocial issued three payments to McCracken totaling
$6,000 in partial fulfillment of the disbursement of the funds as directed by Rembold.
Prosocial also made two payments to Thacker: a check in the amount of $753 for the
incorporation of a company named Syn- Energy, Inc. as a successor to Kings Bridge, Inc.;
and a check to Thacker in the amount of $2,000 for tax preparation advice. Thacker did
not provide any advice to Ellsworth other than to send him some written material and
provide some telephonic tax advice.
As to Rembold, he performed no duties or services in relation to the grant
evaluation. To the contrary, Rembold's sole role was to recommend Prosocial for the
position of evaluator in return for a portion of the funds. See, Fact Finding 62. No
payments from Prosocial were made by check to Rembold who insisted that he be paid in
cash. See, Fact Finding 75. In this regard, Rembold and his spouse maintained a joint
personal checking account wherein cash deposits totaling $15,100 were made from
December 2003 through December 2004. Prosocial made payments to Rembold in cash
consisting of $2,000 in July of 2004.
PERSONAL USE OF SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPERTY
Rembold served as the Superintendent of JMSD from August 2001 to August 2005.
Rembold reported to the JMSD nine member Board of School Directors. As
Superintendent and Chief Administrator, Rembold was expected to be present in the
District between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m.
As a District employee and administrative staff member, Rembold was subject to the
provisions of a policy manual of JMSD. Policy No. 319 provides in part that a JMSD
Superintendent must avoid situations in which his personal interests, activities and
associations conflict with the interest of the school district and must not use school time for
outside activities unless there is a valid reason to justify such action. Policy No. 710
provides that the school district equipment and facilities may not be used by staff for
personal reasons without explicit authorization or administrative approval. Lastly, it is the
policy of JMSD as to computer /internet usage that any type of JMSD technological -
telecommunication systems are for educational purposes to carry out the business of the
District and any type of commercial or for - profit activities is strictly prohibited.
In a private capacity, Rembold obtained employment with the University of Phoenix,
which is a higher education institution that provides education through traditional campus
programs or via the internet. As JMSD Superintendent, Rembold had the use of a
computer and other equipment in his JMSD Office. Rembold used JMSD equipment in
furtherance of his employment with the University of Phoenix by using the fax machine to
Rembold, 05 -006
Page 45
send resumes, transcripts and certificates. The details of the usage of the school district
equipment are delineated in Fact Findings 96, 98, 100.
After Rembold obtained approval to teach classes as an online instructor for the
University of Phoenix in May of 2003, he routinely used the JMSD computer in his private
office to facilitate his online instruction. Such actions by Rembold were done during
regular JMSD working hours. A forensic analysis of Rembold's JMSD computer reflects at
least 156 instances when Rembold used the computer vis -a -vis his teaching for the
University of Phoenix. See, Fact Finding 104.
Rembold received five payments from the Apollo Group, the managing corporation
for University of Phoenix, totaling $2,515.36 as an online instructor. Rembold never
requested or received permission from the JMSD Board to utilize his computer for his
instruction of the online classes for the University of Phoenix. Such action by Rembold
was a circumvention of the JMSD policies and requirements regarding the usage of JMSD
property during school district days and administrative hours.
PERSONAL USE OF IDA COMPUTER AND ACCESSORIES
While Rembold was a member of the IDA Board of Directors, the IDA placed an
order in July of 2003 for seven complete Dell computer systems. In August of 2003, an
IDA representative contacted Dell and advised that the shipment had not been received.
Dell listed the shipment as lost and issued an exchange order to the IDA to replace the
original order. Both the original seven computers that had been sent as well as the seven
computers that were sent as an exchange had individualized service tag numbers. The
cost of the original order was $10,997 based upon a per unit system cost of $1,571. An
IDA check was issued in August 2003 to Dell computers in payment of the order.
Subsequently, the Dell computers associated with both the original as well as the
exchange invoice were received at the Carmichaels Area School District. Rembold's son
Brian and two others removed one of the two orders from the Carmichaels Area School
District prior to the start of the 2003/2004 school year. The remaining order was removed
from the area school district in April or May of 2004 wherein all computers were taken to
21 CCLC for unpacking and inspection. Rembold's son, Brian, was employed at the time
by the 21 CCLC.
Three computers from the exchange order were eventually provided to JMSD for its
use. Three additional computers from the exchange order were either distributed to IDA
employees for use at its offices or maintained in storage. The final computer from the
exchange order was issued to Scott McCracken for use in association with IDA job duties
at the Waynesburg High School.
Six of the seven computers associated with the original order from Dell were
distributed to IDA employees or to JMSD for use. Rembold took possession of the seventh
computer and maintained it at his residence for his personal use. Rembold, who was able
to take possession of the computer as IDA Board President, did not make any payment to
the IDA or Dell. No other IDA Board member had a computer at his /her residence for
professional or personal use. Rembold failed to return the computer to the IDA after his
resignation from the Board in June of 2004.
While Rembold maintained possession of that computer, he was employed as a
professor with the University of Phoenix. A forensic analysis of the hard drive of that
computer reflects that Rembold utilized the computer between May of 2004 and March of
2005 to facilitate his instruction for the University of Phoenix online classes. As an online
instructor for the University of Phoenix, Rembold received $5,537.61 for providing such
educational services. Rembold received a total financial gain of $6,929.61 as a result of
Rembold, 05 -006
Page 46
taking possession of the IDA computer for his personal and business usage. See, Fact
Finding 136.
AWARD OF AN IDA CONTRACT TO REMBOLD'S SON
The IDA obtained various grants that became the linchpin for the development of
Evergreene Technology Park (Park), a 248 acre industrial area for the attraction and
creation of new businesses. Since IDA was the one and only county designated industrial
development organization, DCED contacted Rembold regarding an available LEDA
program grant. A single application for assistance for a LEDA grant was completed by
IDA with Rembold listed as the CEO /President. The application delineated project budget
specifications totaling $17,438. Of the total $17,438, an amount of $8,500 was listed as
promotion /public relations /advertising. DCED, by letter of October 10, 2000, verified the
approval of an LEDA grant to IDA in the amount of $17,438 for the 2000 -2001 fiscal year.
After obtaining authorization from the IDA Board, Rembold signed the contract on October
26, 2000 as IDA Board President.
Following receipt of the $17,438 grant, a discussion ensued at the December 2000
IDA Board meeting regarding the development of a website for the Park. After Rembold
recommended his son Brian to develop the website, a motion was made, seconded and
unanimously passed for the IDA to enter into a contract with Brian Rembold, not to exceed
$500, to register the Park as a website.
Thereafter, another motion was made, seconded and passed unanimously where
the IDA would contract with Brian Rembold, not to exceed $3,000, for the creation of a
website for the Park. In March of 2001, Brian Rembold submitted an invoice to the IDA in
the total amount of $1,480. The bill was for the registration of four domain names for a five
year period and for the completion of 1/3 of the work on the Park website.
The invoice from Brian Rembold directed the IDA to make the check payable to
Kings Bridge, Inc., even though Kings Bridge, Inc. did not have any IT division. In this
regard, Kings Bridge, Inc. was a company to which Rembold directed the West Greene
School District funds and then obtained over $26,000 from Kings Bridge for himself. Such
actions resulted in Rembold being found in violation of the Ethics Act and fined by this
Commission. See, Rembold, Order 1303.
The IDA issued a check in the amount of $1,480 to Kings Bridge, Inc. for the
services performed by Brian Rembold. At a May 2001 IDA Board meeting, a list of checks
was approved, which included the payment to Kings Bridge. The motion to approve the
checks passed unanimously at a meeting with Rembold in attendance and with no
abstention by Rembold.
FAILURE TO FILE SFI OR REPORT FINANCIAL INTERESTS
AS AN IDA BOARD MEMBER
The Stipulated Findings reflect that Rembold failed to file an SFI for the calendar
year 2003 in his position as a member of the IDA Board of Directors. In addition, for the
calendar years 2002 and 2004, Rembold failed to disclose information regarding both
creditors and direct and indirect sources of income. In particular, Rembold failed to
disclose National City Bank as a creditor owed in excess of $6,500. In addition, Rembold
failed to disclose income in excess of $1,300 from the Greene County Vo -Tech School for
the calendar years 2002 and 2004.
Rembold, 05 -006
Page 47
FAILURE TO FILE SFI OR REPORT FINANCIAL INTERESTS
AS JMSD SUPERINTENDENT
As to Rembold's 2000 calendar year SFI, Rembold filed form SEC -1 Rev. 01/02 with
a listed date of August 22, 2001. Because the forms were not mailed until December 14,
2001, that establishes that Rembold backdated the SFI to give the impression that it had
been timely filed.
For SFI reporting purposes, the record reflects that Rembold failed to disclose direct
or indirect sources of income in excess of $1,300 and creditors who were owed in excess
of $6,500. In particular, Rembold failed to disclose the Greene County Vo -Tech School as
a source of income for calendar year 2004. In addition, Rembold failed to disclose
National City Bank as a creditor owed in excess of $6,500 for the SFI calendar years 2002,
2003 and 2004.
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:
In relation to Rembold's service as a Member and President of the
Greene County Industrial Development Authority:
a. That a violation of Section 1103(a) of the Public Official and
Employee Ethics Law, 65 Pa.C.S. §1103(a) occurred in
relation to Rembold's solicitation and receipt of funds from
Stephen Ellsworth, owner of Prosocial Solutions Research, at
a time when Rembold actively participated in the Greene
County Industrial Development Authority's actions and
decisions to award a contract to Prosocial to perform an
evaluation component relating to a grant that Rembold had
obtained in his official capacity as IDA President and had a
reasonable expectation that he would be receiving said funds
from Ellsworth.
b. That a violation of Section 1103(c) of the Public Official and
Employee Ethics Law, 65 Pa.C.S. §1103(c) occurred in
relation to Rembold's solicitation and receipt of funds from
Stephen Ellsworth, owner of Prosocial Solutions Research,
based upon Rembold's understanding that he would
recommend the award of a contract to Prosocial by the
Industrial Development Authority where he served as
President to perform an evaluation in relation to a grant that
Rembold had actively participated in obtaining for the IDA.
c. That a violation of Section 1103(a) of the Public Official and
Employee Ethics Law, 65 Pa.C.S. §1103(a) occurred in
relation to Rembold's acquisition of a personal computer from
the Industrial Development Authority, which computer was
thereafter utilized by Rembold at his home for personal
purposes, including engaging in activities as an instructor for
an online university for which he received compensation.
Rembold, 05 -006
Page 48
d. That a violation of Section 1103(a) of the Public Official and
Employee Ethics Law, 65 Pa.C.S. §1103(a) occurred in
relation to Rembold's participation as President and a Member
of the Industrial Development Authority in the recommendation
and employment of his son, by the authority, to perform
services in relation to the development and maintenance of a
webpage, which services were to be paid out of a grant
received by the Industrial Development Authority regarding
which Rembold had actively participated in obtaining.
e. That a technical violation of Section 1103(f) of the Public
Official and Employee Ethics Law, 65 Pa.C.S. §1103(f)
occurred in relation to the employment of Rembold's son, by
the Industrial Development Authority, to perform services in
relation to the development and the maintenance of a
webpage, when the contract to employ Rembold's son was in
excess of $500 and not awarded through an open and public
process.
In relation to Rembold's service as Superintendent of the Jefferson
Morgan School District:
f. That a violation of Section 1103(a) of the Public Official and
Employee Ethics Law, 65 Pa.C.S. §1103(a) occurred in
relation to Rembold's use of government equipment and
facilities, in his position as Superintendent of the Jefferson
Morgan School District, in aid of his private employment as an
instructor for an online university, which resulted in his receipt
of compensation from that entity.
In relation to Statements of Financial Interests:
g.
That a violation of Section 1104(a) of the Public Official and
Employee Ethics Law, 65 Pa.C.S. §1104(a) occurred in
relation to Rembold's failure to file a Statement of Financial
Interests in his position as President of the Industrial
Development Authority for calendar year 2003 by May 1, 2004.
h. That a violation of Section 1105(b)(4) of the Public Official and
Employee Ethics Law, 65 Pa.C.S. §1105(b)(4) occurred in
relation to Rembold's failure to list creditors on Statements of
Financial Interests filed by him in his position as a Member of
the Greene County Industrial Development Authority for
calendar years 2002 and 2004 respectively, and when he
failed to list creditors on Statements of Financial Interests filed
for calendar years 2002 through 2004 inclusive, in his position
as Superintendent of the Jefferson Morgan School District.
That a violation of Section 1105(b)(5) of the Public Official and
Employee Ethics Law, 65 Pa.C.S. §1105(b)(5) occurred in
relation to Rembold's failure to report sources of income on
Statements of Financial Interests that he filed for calendar
years 2002 and 2004 respectively, in his position as a Member
and President of the Greene County Industrial Development
Authority; and when he failed to report sources of income on
Statements of Financial Interests that he filed for calendar year
2002 and 2004 respectively, in his position as Superintendent
Rembold, 05 -006
Page 49
of the Jefferson Morgan School District.
That a violation of Section 1104(a) of the Public Official and
Employee Ethics Law, 65 Pa.C.S. §1104(a) occurred in
relation to Rembold's failure to timely file a Statement of
Financial Interests for calendar year 2000, in his position as
Superintendent of the Jefferson Morgan School District.
4. Rembold agrees to make payment in the amount of $14,000.00 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.
5. Rembold agrees that he will neither seek nor hold any position of
public office or of public employment in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania at anytime.
6. Rembold agrees that he will not participate in the application or
receipt of any state or federal grant funds and that he further will not
provide any services for compensation in relation to or paid from any
state or federal grants at anytime in the future.
7 The Investigative Division will recommend that this matter be referred
for review by the appropriate law enforcement authorities, however,
the Investigative Division will further recommend that no specific
recommendation be made by the Commission as to the initiation of
charges by those agencies. Such, however, does not prohibit the
Commission from initiating appropriate enforcement actions in the
event of Respondent's failure to comply with this agreement or the
Commission's order or cooperating with any other authority who may
so choose to review this matter further."
J.
In applying Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act to the allegation regarding the IDA
grant, there were uses of authority of office on the part of Rembold. But for the fact that
Rembold was a member of the IDA, he would not have been in a position to advocate for
the award of a $30,000 contract to Prosocial to serve as the grant evaluator of the funds
received from the Benedum Foundation. When Rembold was queried as to his
recommendation of Prosocial, Rembold responded that Prosocial had expertise as an
evaluator. Such actions by Rembold as an IDA Board member were uses of authority of
office. The appointment by the IDA Board of Prosocial as the grant evaluator in which
Rembold participated was also a use of authority of office by him. Such uses of authority
of office resulted in a private pecuniary benefit consisting of the $30,000 that Prosocial
would receive under the contract with the IDA. Lastly, a consequent private pecuniary
benefit inured to Rembold consisting of the kickbacks that he received from Prosocial vis-
a-vis his action of effectuating the award of a contract from IDA to Prosocial.
Rembold violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he participated as an IDA
Board Member in the award of a contract to Prosocial to perform an evaluation in relation
to an IDA grant and obtained a portion of those funds for himself. See, Rembold, Order
1303.
As to Section 1103(c) of the Ethics Act, this provision encompasses solicitation or
acceptance of anything of value that is based upon the public official's understanding that
his vote, official action or judgment would be influenced thereby. Rembold, as an IDA
Board member, following the receipt of a Benedum Foundation Grant in the amount of
$260,000, engaged in two courses of action. First, as an IDA Board Member, he prevailed
Rembold, 05 -006
Page 50
upon the Board to enter into a $30,000 contract with Prosocial to perform a program
evaluation. Second, Rembold engaged Ellsworth of Prosocial to enter into this
arrangement so that Rembold and others could obtain portions of that consulting fee for
themselves.
Rembold as an IDA member had the understanding that his official action and
judgment would be influenced whereby he would advocate and participate in the process
of the IDA to award the contract to Prosocial to do the evaluation report and subsequently
receive a kickback of a portion of the funds for himself. Under these factual
circumstances, all of the requisite elements for a violation of Section 1103(c) of the Ethics
Act occurred.
Rembold violated Section 1103(c) of the Ethics Act when he solicited and received
funds from Stephen Ellsworth, owner of Prosocial Solutions Research, based upon
Rembold's understanding that he would recommend the award of a contract to Prosocial to
provide for an evaluation of an IDA grant. See, Zwick, Order 1062.
Turning to the allegation concerning Rembold's use of the IDA computer at his
home for personal purposes, there were uses of authority of office by Rembold. But for the
fact that Rembold was an IDA Board Member, he would not have been in a position to take
the IDA computer to his home where he utilized it in his private employment as an online
instructor for the University of Phoenix. Through that use of authority of office, Rembold
taught the online course and received compensation for such services. Lastly, the
compensation was a private pecuniary benefit that inured to Rembold himself.
Accordingly, Rembold violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he took a personal
computer from the IDA to his home and used the computer as part of his teaching for
compensation as an instructor for an online University. See, Heck, Order 1251.
The next allegation concerns Rembold as an IDA member, recommending and
participating in an IDA contract with his son to perform services for an internet webpage.
The allegations concern both Sections 1103(a) and 1103(f) of the Ethics Act.
After the IDA received funds from DCED, vis -a -vis the development of the Park, a
Board discussion ensued about the creation of a Park website. At a December 2000 IDA
meeting, Rembold specifically recommended his son for the development of the website.
The motion was made and passed at that meeting whereby IDA would enter into a contract
with Rembold's son, Brian, not to exceed $500, as to the registration of domain names for
the Park. In addition, a subsequent motion at that same meeting was proffered and
passed to award a contract to Brian Rembold, not to exceed $3,000, for the creation of a
Park website. Both of those motions passed unanimously with Rembold present and with
no abstentions noted in the minutes.
As to Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, the actions by Rembold were uses of
authority of office as to his advocacy and participation in the award of those two contracts
to his son. The payments that Rembold's son received under those contracts were private
pecuniary benefits that inured to Rembold's son as an immediate family member.
Accordingly, Rembold violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he recommended
his son and participated in the award of IDA contracts to his son to perform services as to
the development and maintenance of an internet webpage. See, Sanders, Order 1119.
As to Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act, that provision allows a public official, spouse
or child to contract with a governmental body but if the contract is $500 or more, it must be
awarded through an open and public process. In this case, one of the two contracts, was
in excess of $500, but not awarded through an open and public process. As noted above,
Rembold was instrumental in advocating and participating as to the award of that contract
to his son. Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act requires that the award of that contract
should have occurred through an open and public process. However, there was no public
Rembold, 05 -006
Page 51
notice or bidding of that contract. Rembold technically violated Section 1103(f) of the
Ethics Act when his son contracted with the IDA to perform services as to the development
and maintenance of a webpage when the contract was in excess of $500 and not awarded
through an open and public process. See, Sanders, supra.
Turning to the allegation regarding Rembold's use of JMSD property in aid of his
employment as an instructor for an online University, there were uses of authority of office
on the part of Rembold. But for the fact that Rembold was the JMSD Superintendent, he
would not have been in a position to use school district property such as the fax machine
and computer to apply and become an online instructor for the University of Phoenix
internet program. Forensic analysis reflects that there was extensive use of the school
district computer for purposes related to his online course instruction. All such actions
were uses of authority of office. See, Juliante, Order 809. Such uses of authority of office
on the part of Rembold resulted in private pecuniary benefits consisting of the
compensation that he received as an online instructor for the course. Lastly, the private
pecuniary benefits inured to Rembold himself. Accordingly, Rembold violated Section
1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he as the JMSD Superintendent used school district
property to obtain private pecuniary benefits in his private employment as an online
university course instructor. See, Cagno, Order 1204.
The above is consonant with a plethora of prior decisions of this Commission where
we have held that a public official /public employee may not use the authority of office by
utilizing government offices, equipment, personnel or supplies for private business or
campaign /re- election activities. See, Friend, Order 800, Rockefeller, Order 1004, Catone,
Order 994.
The remaining allegations in this case involve the charges that Rembold either
failed to file, back dated or failed to disclose financial interests on his SFIs that he filed
with the IDA or JMSD.
The Stipulated Findings filed by the parties reflect that Rembold failed to file an SFI
for the calendar year 2003 as a member of the IDA. See, Fact Finding 161. Accordingly,
Rembold violated Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act when he, as President of the IDA,
failed to file an SFI for the calendar year 2003 by May 1, 2004. See, Tracy, Order 1255.
Rembold, both in his positions as Board Member of the IDA and Superintendent of
the JMSD, failed to disclose creditors on his SFIs. In particular, for the IDA, Rembold
failed to disclose information regarding creditors for the calendar years 2002 and 2004.
For those calendar years, Rembold failed to disclose the National City Bank as a creditor
to which he owed an amount in excess of $6,500. See, Fact Finding 163(a). Accordingly,
Rembold as an IDA Board Member violated Section 1105(b)(4) of the Ethics Act when he
failed to disclose a creditor owed in excess of $6,500 for the calendar years 2002 and
2004. See, Schlegel, Order 1372.
As JMSD Superintendent, Rembold failed to disclose the National City Bank as a
creditor to which he owed an amount in excess of $6,500 for the calendar years 2002,
2003 and 2004. See, Fact Finding 167. Accordingly, Rembold, as the JMSD
Superintendent, violated Section 1105(b)(4) of the Ethics Act when he failed to disclose
National City Bank as a creditor owed an excess of $6,500 for the 2002, 2003 and 2004
calendar year SFIs. See, Esposito, Order 1333.
Turning to the allegations concerning the non - disclosure of direct or indirect
sources of income by Rembold, the Stipulated Findings reflect that he received income in
excess of $1,300 from the Greene County Vo -Tech School for calendar years 2002 and
2004. See, Fact Finding 163(b). Accordingly, Rembold, as an IDA Board Member,
violated Section 1105(b)(5) of the Ethics Act when he failed to list as a source of income in
Rembold, 05 -006
Page 52
excess of $1,300 the Greene County Vo -Tech School for the 2002 and 2004 calendar year
SFIs. See, Yarnall, Order 996.
The Stipulated Findings reflect that Rembold, as JMSD Superintendent, failed to list
the Greene County Vo -Tech School as a source of income on only his 2004 SFI. See,
Fact Finding 167. Accordingly, Rembold, as the JMSD Superintendent, violated Section
1105(b)(5) of the Ethics Act when he failed to disclose Greene County Vo -Tech School as
a source of income in excess of $1,300 on his SFI for the calendar year 2004. See, Davitt,
Order 850. Parenthetically, in that there is no finding to reflect a failure to disclose a
source of income in excess of $1,300 on Rembold's SFI for the calendar year 2002, we do
not include such in the above finding of violation even though it is so stipulated in the
Consent Agreement. See also, Allegation.
The last SFI allegation concerns a back dating by Rembold of his SFI with the
JMSD for the calendar year 2000. The fact that Rembold back dated and therefore did not
timely file his SFI with the JMSD for the calendar year 2000 is verified in the Stipulated
Findings of the parties. See, Fact Findings 168 -170. Accordingly, Rembold, as the JMSD
Superintendent, violated Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act when he failed to timely file an
SFI for the calendar year 2000. See, Draper, Order 1229.
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, Rembold is directed to
make payment in the amount of $14,000.00 in settlement of this matter payable to the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and forwarded to this Commission within thirty (30) days
of the issuance of the final adjudication in this matter. Noncompliance will result in the
institution of an order enforcement action.
Rembold has agreed that he will neither seek nor hold any position of public office
or of public employment in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania at anytime; that he will not
participate in the application or receipt of any state or federal grant funds and that he
further will not provide any services for compensation in relation to or paid from any state
or federal grants at anytime in the future.
Per the recommendation of the Investigative Division, this matter will be referred for
review to the appropriate law enforcement authorities without any specific recommendation
by the Commission as to the initiation of charges by those agencies.
If Rembold has not already done so, he is directed within 30 days of the date of
issuance of this adjudication to file SFIs and amended SFIs correcting the failures to file
and filing deficiencies as delineated above. Noncompliance will result in the institution of
an order enforcement action.
Although we would normally chastise Rembold regarding his actions in this case,
such action would be pointless given Rembold's prior history (Rembold, Order 1303). In
any event, paragraph 14(b) of our attached Order says it all.
IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
1. Charles Rembold, as a Member of the Greene County Industrial Development
Authority (IDA) Board of Directors and Superintendent of the Jefferson Morgan
School District (JMSD), was a public official /employee subject to the provisions of
Act 9 of 1989 as codified by Act 93 of 1998.
2. Rembold violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he participated as an IDA
Board Member in the award of a contract to Prosocial to perform an evaluation in
relation to an IDA grant and obtained a portion of those funds for himself.
Rembold, 05 -006
Page 53
3. Rembold violated Section 1103(c) of the Ethics Act when he solicited and received
funds from Stephen Ellsworth, owner of Prosocial Solutions Research, based upon
Rembold's understanding that he would recommend the award of a contract to
Prosocial to provide for an evaluation of an IDA grant.
4. Rembold violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he took a personal
computer from the IDA to his home and used the computer as part of his teaching
for compensation as an instructor for an online University.
5. Rembold violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he recommended his son
and participated in the award of IDA contracts to his son to perform services as to
the development and maintenance of an internet webpage.
6. Rembold technically violated Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act when his son
contracted with the IDA to perform services as to the development and maintenance
of a webpage when the contract was in excess of $500 and not awarded through an
open and public process.
7 Rembold violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he as the JMSD
Superintendent used school district property to obtain private pecuniary benefits in
his private employment as an online university course instructor.
8. Rembold violated Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act when he, as President of the
IDA, failed to file an SFI for the calendar year 2003 by May 1, 2004.
9. Rembold as an IDA Board Member violated Section 1105(b)(4) of the Ethics Act
when he failed to disclose a creditor owed in excess of $6,500 for the calendar
years 2002 and 2004.
10. Rembold, as the JMSD Superintendent, violated Section 1105(b)(4) of the Ethics
Act when he failed to disclose National City Bank as a creditor owed an excess of
$6,500 for the 2002, 2003 and 2004 calendar year SFIs.
11. Rembold, as an IDA Board Member, violated Section 1105(b)(5) of the Ethics Act
when he failed to list as a source of income in excess of $1,300 the Greene County
Vo -Tech School for the 2002 and 2004 calendar year SFIs.
12. Rembold, as the JMSD Superintendent, violated Section 1105(b)(5) of the Ethics
Act when he failed to disclose Greene County Vo -Tech School as a source of
income in excess of $1,300 on his SFI for the calendar year 2004.
13. Rembold, as the JMSD Superintendent, violated Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act
when he failed to timely file an SFI for the calendar year 2000.
In Re: Charles Rembold,
Respondent
ORDER NO. 1417
File Docket: 05 -006
Date Decided: 10/4/2006
Date Mailed: 10/20/2006
1 Charles Rembold, as a Member of the Greene County Industrial Development
Authority (IDA) Board of Directors and Superintendent of the Jefferson Morgan
School District (JMSD), violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he
participated as an IDA Board Member in the award of a contract to Prosocial to
perform an evaluation in relation to an IDA grant and obtained a portion of those
funds for himself.
2. Rembold violated Section 1103(c) of the Ethics Act when he solicited and received
funds from Stephen Ellsworth, owner of Prosocial Solutions Research, based upon
Rembold's understanding that he would recommend the award of a contract to
Prosocial to provide for an evaluation of an IDA grant.
3. Rembold violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he took a personal
computer from the IDA to his home and used the computer as part of his teaching
for compensation as an instructor for an online University.
4. Rembold violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he recommended his son
and participated in the award of IDA contracts to his son to perform services as to
the development and maintenance of an internet webpage.
5. Rembold technically violated Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act when his son
contracted with the IDA to perform services as to the development and maintenance
of a webpage when the contract was in excess of $500 and not awarded through an
open and public process.
6. Rembold violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he as the JMSD
Superintendent used school district property to obtain private pecuniary benefits in
his private employment as an online university course instructor.
7 Rembold violated Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act when he, as President of the
IDA, failed to file a Statement of Financial Interests for the calendar year 2003 by
May 1, 2004.
8. Rembold as an IDA Board Member violated Section 1105(b)(4) of the Ethics Act
when he failed to disclose a creditor owed in excess of $6,500 on his Statements of
Financial Interests for the calendar years 2002 and 2004.
9. Rembold, as the JMSD Superintendent, violated Section 1105(b)(4) of the Ethics
Act when he failed to disclose National City Bank as a creditor owed an excess of
$6,500 for the 2002, 2003 and 2004 calendar year Statements of Financial
Interests.
10. Rembold, as an IDA Board Member, violated Section 1105(b)(5) of the Ethics Act
when he failed to list as a source of income in excess of $1,300 the Greene County
Rembold, 05 -006
Page 55
Vo -Tech School for the 2002 and 2004 calendar year Statements of Financial
Interests.
11. Rembold, as the JMSD Superintendent, violated Section 1105(b)(5) of the Ethics
Act when he failed to disclose Greene County Vo -Tech School as a source of
income in excess of $1,300 on his Statement of Financial Interests for the calendar
year 2004.
12. Rembold, as the JMSD Superintendent, violated Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act
when he failed to timely file a Statement of Financial Interests for the calendar year
2000.
13. If Rembold has not already done so, he is directed within 30 days of the date of
issuance of this adjudication to file Statements of Financial Interests and amended
Statements of Financial Interests correcting the failures to file and filing deficiencies
as delineated above. Noncompliance will result in the institution of an order
enforcement action.
14. Per the Consent Agreement of the parties:
a. Rembold is directed to make payment in the amount of $14,000.00 to
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania through this Commission within
thirty (30) days of the mailing of the final adjudication in this matter;
b. Rembold is ordered not to seek or hold any position of public office or
of public employment in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania at
anytime, not to participate in the application or receipt of any state or
federal grant funds and not to provide any services for compensation
in relation to or paid from any state or federal grants at anytime in the
future;
c. This matter will be referred for review to the appropriate law
enforcement authorities without any specific recommendation by this
Commission as to the initiation of charges by those agencies.
d. Compliance with the foregoing will result in the closing of this case
with no further action by this Commission; non - compliance will result
in the institution of an order enforcement action.
BY THE COMMISSION,
Louis W. Fryman, Chair