HomeMy WebLinkAbout1416 EllsworthIn Re: Stephen C. Ellsworth,
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 -028
Order No. 1416
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 allegations. Upon completion of its investigation, the Investigative Division issued
and served upon Respondent a Findings Report identified as an "Investigative Complaint."
An Answer was not filed and a hearing was waived. The record is complete. 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Effective December 15, 1998, Act 9 of 1989 was repealed and replaced by Chapter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.
Ellsworth, 05 -028
Page 2
I. ALLEGATION:
That Stephen Ellsworth, a private citizen, violated Section 1103(b) provision of the
State Ethics Act (Act 93 of 1998), 65 Pa.C.S. §1103(b) when, as a private citizen and an
official of Prosocial Solutions Inc., he was solicited and agreed to pay something of
monetary value including but not limited to, a reward including payment and /or a promise
of future employment to Charles Rembold, Chairman of the Greene County Industrial
Development Authority, based on an understanding that Rembold's official action as a
public official, including making a recommendation to award a contract to Prosocial
Solutions, would be influenced thereby.
II. FINDINGS:
1. Stephen Ellsworth is a private United States citizen.
a. Ellsworth currently resides at 12124 Club Ridge Dr., Chester, VA, 23836.
b. Ellsworth resided at 351 Buna Rd., Fort Lee, VA, 23801 from at least July
1999 until at least July 2005.
2. Ellsworth has served as a Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Army.
a. Ellsworth's [sic] recently served in the position of Chief, Exercise Division, at
the Logistical Exercise and Simulation Directorate at Fort Lee, Va.
b. Ellsworth was serving in the U.S. Army in 2003 and 2004.
3. In addition to his service in the United States Army, Ellsworth also served as a
Professor of Criminal Justice at Saint Leo University and as a grant reviewer under
a subcontract for service providers to the United States Department of Education
(USDOE) and the United States Department of Justice (USDOJ).
a. Ellsworth taught criminal justice and investigative procedure topics at Saint
Leo University.
b. Ellsworth reviewed a wide variety of grant topics for the USDOE and USDOJ
that included programs to deter substance abuse, improve the education of
incarcerated felons, improve emergency response and crisis management
plans, and develop strategies to deter school drop -out rates.
4. Ellsworth is the sole owner /operator of a consulting business known as Prosocial
Solutions Research (hereafter Prosocial).
a. Prosocial provides services in grant acquisition and project implementation,
management, and evaluation among other services.
b. Ellsworth provides consulting services to assist in maintaining his
instructional skills as a professor.
5. Prosocial was initially licensed as a consulting business in Georgia in
approximately 1997.
a. Ellsworth performed the majority of his Prosocial work on a pro bono basis
both in Georgia and Pennsylvania.
6. Ellsworth moved to Virginia in approximately 1999 and was not active with Prosocial
while completing his doctoral dissertation.
Ellsworth, 05 -028
Page 3
a. Ellsworth again began performing services through Prosocial during or about
2003.
b. Prosocial is not registered as a corporation with the Commonwealth of
Virginia Corporation Commission but is a sole proprietorship.
7 Ellsworth previously operated Prosocial from his home residence of 351 Buna
Road, Fort Lee, VA, 23801.
a. Recent Prosocial documents confirm a new address for the business of 5850
Cameron Run Terrace, #1524, Alexandria, VA 22303. This address was
used only for the submission of invoices to the Greene Count [sic] Industrial
Development Authority.
8. Ellsworth maintains a social and professional relationship with Charles P. Rembold.
a. Ellsworth and Rembold met at the Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana
while performing doctorial work in the summer of 1998.
1. At that the [sic] time Rembold was Superintendent of the West
Greene School District.
b. Ellsworth interacted with Rembold on a professional basis when Rembold
utilized a program developed by Ellsworth when working with at -risk youth.
9. Ellsworth developed the Plus Three Program which was provided to King's Bridge,
Inc., a business with which Rembold was associated, for utilization in the PULSE
(People Utilizing Leadership Skills Effectively) program.
a. Rembold was one of the originators of King's Bridge, Inc. and was one of the
creators of the PULSE Program.
1. Rembold implemented the PULSE program through King's Bridge in
school districts where he served as a superintendent.
2. These were programs funded by grants from the state of
Pennsylvania and federal government.
b. From at least February 2001 Ellsworth was utilized by Rembold as a
compensated facilitator at various PULSE programs where Rembold also
served as a facilitator.
1. This included school districts where Rembold was employed.
2. Ellsworth was paid $3,000 in 2001 by King's Bridge.
10. 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 Vice President of the IDA from July 3, 1996 to
December 12, 1996.
b. Rembold served as the President of the IDA from December 12, 1996 to
June 16, 2004.
c. Ellsworth was unaware that Rembold's service with the IDA qualified him as
Ellsworth, 05 -028
Page 4
a public official or public employee.
11. Rembold resigned from the IDA effective June 30, 2004 as a result of a
recommendation from the Greene County Commissioners.
a. The county commissioners sought Rembold's resignation due to negative
publicity Rembold received as a result of State Ethics Commission Order No.
1303 which documented numerous conflicts of interest relating to Rembold's
conduct as West Greene School District superintendent in relation to his
contracting with King's Bridge.
12. 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.
13. The IDA consists of a five - member board appointed to five -year terms by the
Greene County Commissioners.
14. As a member of the IDA board, Rembold routinely recommended 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. Ellsworth was unaware that Rembold was serving as a public official in this
capacity.
15. In 2002 and 2003 Rembold pursued grants for the IDA through the 21 Century
Community Learning Centers Program.
16. 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).
17. 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 currently operational
in Greene County including four sites in West Greene School District, three
sites in Central Greene School District, two sites in Jefferson Morgan School
District, two sites in Carmichaels School District, and two sites in Southeast
Greene School District.
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.
Ellsworth, 05 -028
Page 5
18. Linda P. McCracken Director of the 21 CCLC Program for Greene County,
assisted Rembold within the filing of grant applications in 2002 and 2003.
a. McCracken reports to the Greene County Education Consortium (hereafter
Education Consortium) in her position as Director of the 21 CCLC program.
b. 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. Additional members are included based on projects with other entities
in which the Consortium is involved (i.e. representatives from
Waynesburg College, IDA representatives, 21 CCLC
representatives, etc.).
2. Rembold served as a member of the Education Consortium from at
least October 1995 through May 2005.
c. The 21 CCLC program and the Education Consortium work in collaboration
with the IDA.
1. The 21 CCLC and the Education Consortium pursue various grants
for program funding (including child care program funding, drug free
community support program funding, community technology center
funding, etc.) through the IDA.
2. Grants pursued through the IDA are typically written by McCracken or
an IDA representative.
19. Ellsworth and Rembold both maintain a professional relationship with Linda
McCracken.
a. Rembold was familiar with McCracken in a professional capacity as a result
of McCracken's previous employment with Central Greene School District,
Greene County, as a result of McCracken's facilitation of the PULSE
Program in Greene County, and as a result of McCracken's interaction with
the IDA as the Director of the 21 CCLC
b. Ellsworth became familiar with McCracken in a professional capacity as a
result of McCracken's association with Rembold and the PULSE Program.
20. 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.
b. Community Technology Centers provide technology access to individuals,
communities, and populations that typically would not otherwise have places
to use computer and telecommunications technologies.
Ellsworth, 05 -028
Page 6
21. 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 seeking a $300,000 grant
to be utilized for personnel, fringe benefits, equipment, supplies and other
expenses associated with the proposed Community Technology Centers..
a. The application documents Rembold as the Project Director.
b. Rembold's signature is documented as the authorized representative of the
applicant.
c. The application also sought an allocation of $30,000 for an outside
consultant to be utilized to assist with the program evaluation.
d. The proposed project dates were October 1, 2002 through September 30,
2003.
e. On or about September 30, 2002 Rembold received correspondence from
the U.S. Department of Education that the application would not be funded.
22. 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 requesting funding totaling $497,000 to be
utilized for personnel, fringe benefits, travel, equipment, supplies, contractual
obligations, training stipends and expenses.
a. The application documents Rembold as the Project Director.
b. Rembold included in the "Contractual" category was an allocation of
$30,000.00 to an outside consultant to be commissioned to assist with the
program evaluation.
c. 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).
d. The IDA was advised via correspondence dated October 15, 2003 from
Karen Holliday, Team Leader, Community Technology Centers Program, US
Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education that the
application was not recommended for funding.
23. The outside consultant for program evaluation listed as part of both grant
applications prepared by or on Rembold's behalf was to be Stephen Ellsworth.
24. Linda 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.
25. In or abut [sic] the fall of 2003 the IDA sought grant funds through the Claude
Worthington Benedum Foundation.
Ellsworth, 05 -028
Page 7
a. Charles Rembold participated in this process.
1. Rembold's 2003 application to U.S. Dept. of Education was used to
apply for the Benedum Grant.
26. 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
development.
b. The Benedum Foundation typically awards approximately fifteen million
dollars per year in grants.
c. Two - thirds of the allocation is awarded to West Virginia and one -third is
allocated to Southwestern Pennsylvania.
27. The Benedum Foundation is primarily proactive in soliciting projects for funding.
a. Solicitation is accomplished via the Benedum Foundation Website,
brochures, public presentations, and through personal contacts.
28. James 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.
1. The Benedum Foundation Board routinely follows Denova's
recommendation regarding project funding.
b. Denova is specifically involved in funding recommendations for education
and workforce development programs.
29. On July 10, 2003 Rembold participated in a meeting with Denova in order to
discuss funding for the Community Technology Centers.
a. The meeting occurred at the IDA office in Waynesburg, Pa.
b. Also attending the meeting and participating in the discussion were
McCracken, Don Chappel (IDA Executive Director), and Bertrum Menhart
(IDA Director of Special Projects).
c. Rembold supplied Denova with a copy of the previous Comm -Tech Grant
application for review at the meeting.
30. On or about October 3, 2003, Denova again met with Rembold, McCracken, and
Menhart to further discuss a grant from the Benedum Foundation to fund the
Community Technology Centers.
a. The purpose of the meeting was to establish parameters for the grant which
would permit funding to the IDA from the Benedum Foundation.
Ellsworth, 05 -028
Page 8
1. Exact funding amount for the project was not known.
31. 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...."
32. By November 3, 2003 the Benedum Foundation determined that a grant of
$260,000 would be awarded to the IDA.
a. The Benedum Foundation held an agenda meeting on November 3, 2003 for
the purpose of setting the agenda for the regular board meeting to be held
on December 9, 2003.
b. Denova determined the specific amount of $260,000 of Benedum
Foundation funding to be provided to the IDA at the November 3, 2003
agenda meeting.
1. 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.
b. Denova specified the amount of proposed funding to McCracken on or about
November 3, 2003.
33. Denova advised McCracken via e-mail dated December 4, 2003 that the Benedum
Foundation trustees would be meeting on December 9, 2003 to approve grants.
a. Denova indicated that he did not anticipate a problem with the grant.
34. 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.
a. The document was prepared by Denova with the assistance of information
provided by the IDA and through communications with individuals involved
with the grant application.
35. 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."
36. The program staff write -up presented by Denova included funding for an evaluation
of the program in the amount of $30,000.00.
Ellsworth, 05 -028
Page 9
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 did not change the evaluation amount of $30,000 from that listed on
the original Comm -Tech grant prepared by Rembold.
37. Minutes of the December 9, 2003 Benedum Foundation Board of Trustees confirm
the approval of a $260,000.00 grant to the IDA as part of the Southwestern
Pennsylvania Grants Program.
a. The grant was issued under Grant Reference No. 20020515.
38. Denova advised McCracken 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.
39. Ellsworth was aware as early as July 2003 that Prosocial would be utilized by
Rembold as the evaluator of future grants.
a. In e -mail communication to McCracken dated July 28, 2003, Ellsworth wrote,
"... It is clear to me that Chuck is engaging in the `scratch each others back'
venue..."
1. This was in reference to grants and Rembold's utilization of friends as
facilitators.
40. Rembold and McCracken met between the approximate dates of November 3, 2003
and December 12, 2003 and discussed the $30,000.00 set aside for the outside
evaluation.
a. Rembold devised the scheme where Prosocial would be utilized as the
outside consultant for the Benedum grant issued.
1. Rembold informed McCracken that Prosocial would be the grant
evaluator.
b. Rembold developed the plan that the $30,000.00 paid to Prosocial for the
evaluation was to be divided between Rembold, McCracken, and Ellsworth.
c. Ellsworth was not aware that Rembold was serving as a public official in
relation to the grant and evaluation component.
41. Ellsworth was provided information from Rembold through McCracken that
Prosocial would be the evaluator for the project and was provided with general
guidance 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.
Ellsworth, 05 -028
Page 10
aa. McCracken noted in the e -mail that this would be Ellsworth's
decision.
3. Rembold wanted the evaluation to measure affective [sic] 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.
5. Ellsworth never received a written contract to act as the evaluator.
a. Ellsworth suggested quarterly updates and billings.
b. Ellsworth did not suggest quarterly evaluations as the program
was better suited for midpoint formative and end of program
summative.
42. Subsequent to McCracken's meeting with Rembold, McCracken conveyed to
Ellsworth Rembold's direction regarding the division of funds.
a. Ellsworth agreed with the division of the evaluation funds and advised
McCracken of such in an e-mail dated December 12, 2003.
b. Ellsworth stated in an e-mail to McCracken dated December 12, 2003,
among other information, "I need to understand how Chuck wants the $30K
divided again, just to be sure."
43. McCracken responded to Ellsworth's message via e -mail communication on
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 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. I 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. Rembold provided McCracken with all of the information in the e-mail
Ellsworth, 05 -028
Page 11
communication for ultimate dissemination to Ellsworth.
b. McCracken provided the information to Ellsworth from Rembold's
handwritten notes.
1. Analysis by the Pennsylvania State Police verified that Rembold's
handwriting is consistent with the written notes utilized by McCracken
to disseminate the information.
c. "ET" is Rile Edgar Thacker, a partner of Rembold in King's Bridge Inc.
d. "Brenda" is Brenda Spratt (Thacker's spouse).
44. Ellsworth acknowledged acceptance of and inclusion in the financial arrangements
devised by Rembold 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 essentially as it is under the table. Your share
would be taxable. That is how I read this."
45. 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. Prosocial's 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.
46. Ellsworth's participation in the arrangement and his agreement to return funds to
Rembold is confirmed in his e -mail of December 12, 2003.
a. Ellsworth received assurances from Rembold via the 12/12/03 e -mail from
McCracken that he (Prosocial) would always be the evaluator for future
grants.
47. The Benedum Foundation issued the IDA check number 2204, dated December 16,
Ellsworth, 05 -028
Page 12
2003, in the amount of $260,000.00 representative of the grant issued.
a. The check was deposited into an IDA account at First National Bank (Account No.
200386084) on January 6, 2004.
b. The check documented the Grant Reference No. 20020515 in the memo
section.
48. The Benedum Foundation Grant received was discussed at the IDA board meeting
of December 18, 2003.
a. Rembold was present at the December 18, 2003 meeting.
49. Six days after Ellsworth's e -mail communications with Rembold via McCracken,
when he agreed to pay Rembold, Rembold recommended to the IDA board that
Prosocial serve as the grant evaluator.
a. During the December 18, 2003 IDA board meeting when the grant was
discussed, Rembold, as President of the IDA board, specifically
recommended the use of Ellsworth's company Prosocial.
b. Ellsworth was not aware that Rembold ws [sic] serving as a public official in
his role with IDA.
50. Following Rembold's recommendation, IDA board member Richard "Skip" Naftzger
questioned if any of the board members knew anything about Prosocial.
a. Rembold was the only board member responding, and stated that Prosocial
had expertise in the area required for the evaluator.
b. No IDA board members other than Rembold, had any knowledge of
Prosocial prior to Rembold's recommendation.
51. The IDA board unanimously voted 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 was approved based on Rembold's recommendation of
Prosocial.
b. Ellsworth never received a written contract to act as evaluator.
52. Ellsworth /Prosocial did not submit quarterly reports to the IDA as documented 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
Invoice No.
Invoice Date
Amount
Description
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
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.
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
Ellsworth, 05 -028
Page 13
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
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.
53. Information (i.e. data, figures, etc.) utilized by Ellsworth in compiling the Interim
Evaluation and the Summative Evaluation was compiled and provided 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.
54. Ellsworth, acting as Prosocial, submitted five invoices totaling $26,000.00 to the
IDA requesting payment for services rendered in association with the evaluation for
the Community Technology project funded by the Benedum Foundation Grant as
shown below:
a. All invoices received document Prosocial's address of 351 Buna Road, Fort
Lee, VA, 23801 with the exception of Invoice No. 005 -03PA
1. Invoice No. 005 -03PA, the most recent invoice submitted,
documented a new address of 5850 Cameron Run Terrace, # 1524,
Alexandria, VA, 22303.
2. These are addresses utilized by Ellsworth.
b. All invoices received document customer information as Donald Chappel,
Director, IDA, 19 South Washington Street, Suite 150, Waynesburg, Pa,
15370.
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
Ellsworth, 05 -028
Page 14
c. All invoices received note "Check" as the payment method to be utilized.
55. 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.
a. Rembold participated in voting to approve check number 5634 noted above.
1. Rembold resigned as an IDA board member on June 30, 2004.
b. The IDA has not yet approved payment for Invoice No. 005- 003PA.
56. On November 5, 2004, Ellsworth again verified his support of and participation in
the existing Benedum Grant kickback scheme and future schemes devised by
Rembold via multiple e -mail correspondence among Rembold, McCracken, and
Ellsworth which documented, in part, the following:
a. Ellsworth to McCracken:
"ET suggests that some Benedum Funds be used to incorporate another
corporation. That does not sound right, unless the two are directly linked.
What are your thoughts ?"
b. Rembold to Ellsworth:
"Linda shared your concern about the money from the Benedum to create
Syn- Energy, Solutions, Inc. Money is money and your share from the
Benedum is $8,000.00 and Linda's is $8,000.00. That leaves $4,000.00 to
cover taxes and expenses. When we do the PULSE training in Dec more
money is coming. What is wrong with using the Benedum money now to do
what we need to do and repaying the account when more money is
available? I'm concerned about your concern. As long as we all share
equally in the profits, we all need to share the expenses. KBI gave you
$1,000.00 to create the non - profit Pro - Social. Ed and I had no concern
about that -we knew eventually we would all benefit. We need you to have
the same faith. I guess I'm rambling. Chuck."
c. Ellsworth to Rembold:
The point that I am making is merely to ensure that we do not do anything
that could cause problems or controversy. The future is bright, with much
potential revenue and growth, and addressing concerns now is far better
than addressing them in the future."
d. McCracken to Ellsworth:
". . . Chuck walked in as I was checking my e -mail and I shared your
concern; I didn't see what he wrote. All he said to me is that the Benedum
money is your /Prosocial monies [sic]. He has left already."
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
Ellsworth, 05 -028
Page 15
e. Ellsworth to McCracken:
"I am looking forward to coming up there in Dec, as we (especially me) need
a much better handle on bookkeeping procedures."
57. Ellsworth did not understand that Rembold wanted him to pay for the incorporation
from his personal earnings but rather believed that Rembold was to use funds
earmarked for the technology training.
58. Prosocial maintains a checking account with Suntrust Bank in Virginia.
59. All checks received by Prosocial from the IDA were deposited into Prosocial's
account at Suntrust on or about the dates shown below:
60. Ellsworth /Prosocial issued three payments to McCracken totaling $6,000.00 in
partial fulfillment of the distribution of the funds 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.
61. McCracken maintains a personal checking account at Community Bank in
Carmichaels, Pa 15320.
a. McCracken did not deposit any of the funds issued to her from
Ellsworth /Prosocial into her personal checking account at Community Bank.
b. McCracken kept the funds Ellsworth paid her separate from her legitimate
income.
1. McCracken utilized the funds from Ellsworth for general spending.
62. 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.
63. Thacker did nothing for the $2,000 other than send Ellsworth some written material
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
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
Ellsworth, 05 -028
Page 16
and provide some telephonic tax advice.
64. Ellsworth paid Thacker the $2,000 at Rembold's direction.
65. Rembold performed no duties or services in relation to the grant evaluation to
warrant his request of $9,000 from Ellsworth.
a. Rembold's sole role was to recommend Ellsworth /Prosocial be chosen as the
evaluator in return for a portion of the grant funds.
66. No payments to Rembold from Ellsworth /Prosocial were made by check.
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 effectively concealed any payments made to him by directing that
the payments be made in cash.
67. 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 when Ellsworth was being paid by the
IDA, documents unexplained cash deposits into Rembold's account totaling
$15,100.00 as shown below:
68. 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 by Ellsworth in Charlottesville, Virginia, in the form of
twenty, one hundred dollar bills.
Ellsworth, 05 -028
Page 17
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.
III. DISCUSSION:
Respondent, Stephen C. Ellsworth (Ellsworth), is a United States citizen who is
subject to Section 1103(b) 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 Ellsworth violated Section 1103(b) of the Ethics Act when
he, as an official of Prosocial Solutions Inc. (Prosocial), agreed to pay something of
monetary value, a reward including payment or a promise of future employment to Charles
Rembold (Rembold), Chairman of the Greene County Industrial Development Authority,
based on an understanding that Rembold's official action as a public official, including
making a recommendation to award a contract to Prosocial, would be influenced thereby.
Section 1103. Restricted activities
(b) No person shall offer or give to a public official,
public employee or nominee or candidate for public office or a
member of his immediate family or a business with which he is
associated, anything of monetary value, including a gift, loan,
political contribution, reward or promise of future employment
based on the offeror's or donor's understanding 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(b).
Section 1103(b) of the Ethics Act provides in part that no person shall offer to a
public official /employee anything of monetary value based upon the understanding that the
vote, official action, or judgment of the public official /employee would be influenced
thereby.
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.
Ellsworth has been an officer in the U.S. Army, a grant reviewer for the U.S.
Department of Education and Justice Department and a Criminal Justice professor at St.
Leo University. In a private capacity, 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. From at least February 2001, Rembold
utilized Ellsworth as a compensated facilitator at various PULSE programs. Rembold also
served as a member of the Greene County Industrial Development Authority (IDA) from
Ellsworth, 05 -028
Page 18
July 1996 to June of 2004 when the County Commissioner 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 recommended the pursuit
of available grants for which IDA would serve as fiscal agent or administrator. In 2002 and
2003, Rembold pursued grants for the IDA through the 21 Century Community Learning
Center's Program (Program). 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. Both Rembold and Ellsworth, who was unaware that Rembold's position on
the IDA made him a public official, maintained a professional relationship with McCracken.
In 2002, IDA in conjunction with the Program, the Greene County Education Consortium
(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 did not recommend funding. For
both grant applications, the outside consultant for program evaluation was listed as
Ellsworth.
In the Fall of 2003, the IDA sought grants through the Claude Worthington
Benedum Foundation (Benedum Foundation). The Benedum Foundation 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, which is primarily proactive in soliciting projects for funding.
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 staff 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. 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. From the $30,000 paid to Prosocial, that
amount 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.
Ellsworth, 05 -028
Page 19
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, a partner 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. Rembold, through an e -mail from
McCracken, gave assurances to Ellsworth that Prosocial would always be the evaluator for
future grants.
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. As noted, Ellsworth was not aware that Rembold
was serving as a public official in his role with the IDA. 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 in the area
required as an evaluator.
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. 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, through Prosocial, 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 54. Between
March of 2004 and April 2005, the IDA approved payments and issued four checks to
Prosocial totaling $24,000. See, Fact Finding 55. Rembold participated in voting to
approve one of the checks. After Rembold resigned as an IDA Board Member on June 30,
2004, the IDA has not approved payment of the fifth invoice in the amount of $2,000 from
Prosocial.
In a series of e -mail correspondence on November 5, 2004, among Rembold,
McCracken and Ellsworth, the participation in the existing Benedum Grant kickback
scheme was confirmed. See, Fact Finding 56.
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. No payments from Prosocial were
made by check to Rembold who insisted that he be paid in cash. 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. Such cash
deposits occurred when Ellsworth was being paid by IDA. Prosocial made payments to
Rembold in cash consisting of $2,000 in July of 2004.
Ellsworth, 05 -028
Page 20
Having highlighted the Stipulated Findings and issues before us, we shall now apply
the Ethics Act to determine the proper disposition of this case.
The parties' Consent Agreement sets forth a proposed resolution of the allegations
as follows:
"3. The Investigative Division will recommend the following in relation to
the above allegations:
a. That an unintentional violation of Section 1103(b) of the Public
Official and Employee Ethics Law, 65 Pa.C.S. §1103(b)
occurred based on the fact that Ellsworth was unaware that
Rembold, in his position with the IDA, was a public official
when he was participating in the acquisition of the IDA grant
and IDA's selection of Prosocial to perform the evaluation
component under said grant.
4. Ellsworth agrees to make payment in the amount of $1,000.00 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."
Consent Agreement, ¶3, ¶4.
In applying the provisions of Section 1103(b) of the Ethics Act to the stipulated
findings, we initially note that this Section applies to persons in general and not just to
public employees and public officials. The prohibition of this Section encompasses
solicitation or acceptance of anything of value that is based upon the offeror's /donor's
understanding that the vote, official action or judgment of the public official or public
employee would be influenced thereby.
In applying Section 1103(b) of the Ethics Act to the facts of record, Rembold was a
public official in his capacity as an IDA Board member. With the IDA being the recipient of
a Benedum Foundation Grant in the amount of $260,000, Rembold engaged in two
courses of action. First, as an IDA Board Member, he prevailed upon the Board to enter
into a $30,000 contract with Prosocial to perform a program evaluation. The second
course of action by Rembold was to engage Ellsworth of Prosocial to enter into this
arrangement with the IDA so that Rembold and others could obtain portions of that
consulting fee for themselves.
Ellsworth, not knowing that Rembold was a public official with his Board
membership on IDA, went along with the arrangement. Prosocial entered into the
arrangement with IDA for the ostensible purpose of providing the evaluation in return for
$30,000. In actuality, Rembold structured the arrangement so that part of the $30,000
would be kicked back to him (Rembold) and other individuals. For the details of the actual
breakdown of how the $30,000 was intended to be utilized, see Fact Finding 45.
In this case, Ellsworth was willing to give Rembold $9,000 from the $30,000 relating
to the consulting evaluation report from Prosocial. In return, 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. Under these factual circumstances, all of the
requisite elements for a violation of Section 1103(b) of the Ethics Act occurred in this case.
The parties have stipulated to an "unintentional violation" of Section 1103(b) of the Ethics
Act. Although we recognize that conceptually an "unintentional" violation of Section
1103(b) of the Ethics Act is unlikely to occur, we accept the Consent Agreement as part of
the overall settlement by the parties.
Ellsworth, 05 -028
Page 21
Accordingly, "...an unintentional violation of Section 1103(b) of the Public Official
and Employee Ethics Law, 65 Pa.C.S. §1103(b) occurred based on the fact that Ellsworth
was unaware that Rembold, in his position with the IDA, was a public official when he was
participating in the acquisition of the IDA grant and IDA's selection of Prosocial to perform
the evaluation component under said grant." Id. See, Myrsiades, Order 1301; Dietrich,
Order 1067.
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, Ellsworth is directed to make
payment in the amount of $1,000.00 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.
Compliance with the foregoing will result in the closing of this case with no further action
by this Commission. Noncompliance will result in the institution of an order enforcement
action.
IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
1. Stephen E. Ellsworth, a private citizen, is subject to the provisions of Section
1103(b) of Act 9 of 1989 as codified by Act 93 of 1998.
2. "... [A]n unintentional violation of Section 1103(b) of the Public Official and
Employee Ethics Law, 65 Pa.C.S. §1103(b) occurred based on the fact that
Ellsworth was unaware that Rembold, in his position with the IDA, was a public
official when he was participating in the acquisition of the IDA grant and IDA's
selection of Prosocial to perform the evaluation component under said grant."
In Re: Stephen C. Ellsworth,
Respondent
ORDER NO. 1416
File Docket: 05 -028
Date Decided: 10/4/2006
Date Mailed: 10/20/2006
1 "... [A]n unintentional violation of Section 1103(b) of the Public Official and
Employee Ethics Law, 65 Pa.C.S. §1103(b) occurred based on the fact that
Ellsworth was unaware that Rembold, in his position with the IDA, was a public
official when he was participating in the acquisition of the IDA grant and IDA's
selection of Prosocial to perform the evaluation component under said grant."
2. Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Ellsworth is directed to make payment in
the amount of $1,000.00 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.
a. Compliance with the foregoing will result in the closing of this case with no
further action by this Commission.
b. Non - compliance will result in the institution of an order enforcement action.
BY THE COMMISSION,
Louis W. Fryman, Chair