Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1410 SalaneckIn Re: John Salaneck, 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 -035 Order No. 1410 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 Effective December 15, 1998, Act 9 of 1989 was repealed and replaced by Chapter 11 of Act 93 of 1998, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq., which essentially repeats Act 9 of 1989 and provides for the completion of pending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. Salaneck, 05 -035 Page 2 I. ALLEGATION: That John Salaneck, a public official /public employee, in his capacity as Supervisor of Union Township, Berks County, violated Sections 1103(a), and 1103(f) provisions of the State Ethics Act (Act 93 of 1998), 65 Pa.C.S. § §1103(a), and 1103(f) 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 actions of the Board of Supervisors resulting in a truck being purchased from New Holland Ford, his employer, and when he participated in the vote of council authorizing payment to New Holland Ford; when the purchase, in excess of $500.00, was made without an open and public process; and when he participated in the approval by the board of supervisors authorizing the purchase of auto parts from New Holland Ford, including but not limited to, making purchases and approving payments. II. FINDINGS: 1. John Salaneck has served as a Union Township, Berks County Supervisor since 2002. a. Salaneck was appointed as township roadmaster on January 6, 2003 and continues to serve in that capacity. 2. As township roadmaster, Salaneck is responsible for overseeing the township's road department employees, equipment, facilities, and activities. a. Day -to -day activities of the road department are supervised by Ken Geiger, Deputy Roadmaster. 1. Geiger is a full -time township employee. 3. As roadmaster, John Salaneck, also has responsibility for equipment and parts purchases for the township road crew. a. This includes obtaining price quotes and authorizing Deputy Roadmaster Geiger where to make purchases. 4. Since March 5, 2001, John Salaneck has been employed as the Truck Shop Manager /Group Leader for the Commercial Services Department of New Holland Auto Group (NHAG) located at 508 West Main Street, New Holland, PA 17557. 5. New Holland Auto Group is an automobile dealership specializing in sales of Ford, Lincoln, Mercury, Toyota, Dodge, Chrysler, and Jeep product lines. 6. When purchasing auto parts for township vehicles, John Salaneck and Deputy Roadmaster Ken Geiger will discuss how to approach the matter. a. These conversations are usually done telephonically. b. Ken Geiger is generally directed by John Salaneck to solicit quotes from three entities to determine the cost. c. John Salaneck also gets a price quote for the same part from New Holland Auto Group, his employer. d. John Salaneck makes the final decision as to where to purchase the auto part after Ken Geiger informs him of the quotes he obtained. Salaneck, 05 -035 Page 3 e. Usually parts are purchased from New Holland Auto Group because the part is generally cheaper than at a local auto part store. 1. The price comparisons have been done by Salaneck. 7 After discussing the parts needed, Salaneck authorizes Geiger to complete a purchase order to acquire the parts from NHAG. 8. From January 20, 2003 to September 19, 2005, Union Township purchased auto parts on 12 different occasions from NHAG. a. Salaneck authorized the purchases as Union Township Roadmaster and made the sales as NHAG employee. 9. Salaneck purchased parts on behalf of Union Township from NHAG including a fuel selonoid switch, windshield wipers and blade assemblies, windshield wiper motor, power steering cooler, bearing assemblies, clutch assembly, brake parts, and electrical components. a. No individual purchase was in excess of $500.00. 10. Union Township General Fund checks were issued to NHAG as detailed below for NHAG invoices and /or statements: 11. Township checks issued to NHAG were included as part of monthly bill lists. a. Bill lists are voted on in their entirety by a single motion. b. Bill lists are included with the Supervisors meeting packets. 1. Meeting packets are distributed to supervisors the night of their meeting. c. The actual bills are available for review at the township building approximately three (3) days before they are officially approved. 12. Salaneck in his official capacity as a Union Township Supervisor participated in official actions of the Board of Supervisors to approve bill lists and sign checks which authorized payments to his employer NHAG. a. b. Salaneck participated in the approval of twelve (12) township checks issued to NHAG. Saleneck signed the front side of seven (7) checks issued to NHAG. 13. Salaneck in his official capacity as supervisor voted to approve the bill lists, which included payments to NHAG: 14. As a Union Township supervisor signed the front side of seven (7) checks totaling $1,377.91 for parts issued to his employer NHAG. Checks signed include: a. Check Number 10385 10504 10752 10823 10980 Date 01/20/03 04/21/03 10/27/03 12/15/03 04/26/04 Amount $ 351.44 $ 134.12 $ 231.54 $ 244.42 $ 65.01 Salaneck, 05 -035 Page 4 11139 08/16/04 $ 107.15 11182 09/20/04 $ 244.23 $1,377.91 15. NHAG realized a profit of $647.17 from the sale of parts to Union Township. a. NHAG's profit is based on total sales of $2,588.66 and a profit percentage of 25 %. 16. Salaneck did not receive any additional compensation from NHAG as the result of the sale of auto parts to Union Township. a. Salaneck is a salaried employee of NHAG and does not receive any incentives as a result of the sale of parts. (The following findings relate to the allegation that John Salaneck participated in board actions resulting in a vehicle being purchased from NHAG) 17. Beginning in or about late 2004, Salaneck was instrumental in the township purchasing a new truck from NHAG. a. Salaneck's actions include, but were not limited to, searching for a vendor, selecting the vendor, negotiating the price and options, and approving payment. 18. In or about October of 2004, Union Township Supervisors discussed the need to purchase a new pick -up truck to replace the township's 1986 GMC pick -up truck . a. These discussions were initiated by John Salaneck at special meetings to create the 2005 budget. b. Special budget meetings were held on October 7, 2004; October 20, 2004; and November 23, 2004. 19. On December 30, 2004, John Salaneck seconded the motion and voted to adopt resolution #2004 -25; which approved the Union Township budget for the 2005 fiscal year. a. The township's 2005 budget included a $29,529.00 line item for street equipment. b. Acquisition of a new truck would be paid out of the street equipment budget. 20. During late 2004 Salaneck had at least two discussions with Ken Geiger, Deputy Roadmaster, regarding the necessity of a new truck. a. Geiger agreed that a new truck was needed. b. The township's GMC pick -up truck was used by the road crew to haul tools, pull the chipper /tar, and to drive to various job sites. c. A new truck would serve the same functions as the GMC, but also be able to plow snow. 21. During the supervisors January 17, 2005 meeting, Salaneck informed the board of supervisors and those in attendance that money has been set aside in the 2005 budget to purchase a new truck. VENDOR VEHICLE PRICE Hondru Expenence Fleet 2005 Dodge Ram 2500 $ 35,420.00 Hondru Expenence Fleet 2005 Ford 350 $ 24,636.93 Salaneck, 05 -035 Page 5 a. Also during the meeting, Salaneck requested that the board authorize him to solicit prices for the new truck. b. By a 3 -0 vote, with Salaneck voting in favor of the motion, he was authorized by the board to obtain prices for a new truck. 22. On January 18, 2005, one day after he was authorized to seek quotes, John Salaneck e- mailed Rick Kochel, Commercial Account Manager, New Holland Auto Group, from his NHAG e -mail account stating, "I have been authorized by the Union Township /Berks County Board of Supervisors, to seek bids for a new Public Works truck through the state contract bid process." a. Within the e -mail, John Salaneck lists the specifications for the new truck. 1. F -350 2. SRW Steel Road Wheel 3. Powerstroke 4. Six Speed Manual Transmission 5. Limited Slip Differential 6. Red in color 7. Standard Cab /8 foot bed 8. Steel wheels 9. Snow Plow 10. Trailer Hitch package 11. NC 12. Bench Seat 13. Rubber Floor Mats b. Under John Salaneck's name he indicated that he is affiliated with Union Township and serves as Supervisor /Roadmaster for the township. 23. The new truck specifications were developed by Salaneck. 24. John Salaneck e- mailed Rick Kochel a second time from his NHAG e -mail account on February 5, 2005, informing Rick Kochel that he has retrieved the necessary brochures from his office for a "Fisher EZ -V96 with trip- edge" or "MC 10' w /Sno- Foil." a. The Fisher EX -V96 with trip -edge and MC 10' /Sno -Foil are snow plows. These plows are not sold by NHAG. b. The township wanted a snow plow assembly as an option on the new truck. 25. John Salaneck also secured quotes for a new truck from the PACC piggyback contract fro [sic] the following vendors: The quotes were obtained by Salaneck from Scott Reppert on or about January 21, 2005, for the Ford 350 and March 7, 2005, for the Dodge Ram 2500. 26. At the February 21, 2005 board of supervisors meeting, John Salaneck informed Salaneck, 05 -035 Page 6 the board that he looked into prices and that a 2005 F -350 4X4 pick -up truck purchased through a Commonwealth contract would cost $24,727.00. a. The $24,727.00 quote was the quote Salaneck received from his employer NHAG. b. At this meeting, John Salaneck seconds the motion and votes to purchase the truck. 1. The motion passed by a 2 -0 vote. c. Also at this meeting, John Salaneck informs the board that he obtained price quotes for a snow plow and recommended purchasing at 9 1/2' V plow package for $5,195.00. John Salaneck seconds the motion and voted to buy the plow package. 1. The motion passes by a 2 -0 vote. 27. Salaneck advised the board during the 2/21/05 meeting that the truck price was through the Commonwealth. a. Union Township Supervisors were unaware that the new truck was not purchased through the Commonwealth purchasing system. 28. On March 21, 2005, John Salaneck reported to the board of supervisors that the new truck to be purchased will be a 2006 rather than a 2005 model due to an early release date of 2006 trucks. a. The truck specifications prepared by John Salaneck were for a Ford F -350 which required that a vehicle had to be ordered from the Ford Motor Company. b. During March and April, Ford was no longer accepting orders for 2005 models because they were switching over to 2006 model parts. 29. The 2006 F -350 truck purchase came before the Union Township Board of Supervisors during their June 20, 2005 meeting. a. At the June 20, 2005 supervisor meeting, John Salaneck motions to ratify the final payment to $25,275.00 instead of $24,727.00 due to a 2006 model being purchased rather than the 2005 model. b. Also, at this meeting, John Salaneck motioned and voted to approve the bill list for that month which included the payment for the truck from NHAG. 1. The motion passed by a 3 -0 vote. 30. Union Township check number 1648, dated June 9, 2005 in the amount of $25,275.00 was included on the bill list payable to New Holland Auto. a. John Salaneck's signature appears on township check number 1648 authorizing payment to be made to his employer. 31. The Union Township Board of Supervisors approved the payment for a 2006 model F -350 approximately two (2) weeks after the truck was physically delivered. a. The township's check made payable for the truck was received by NHAG on Salaneck, 05 -035 Page 7 June 10, 2005. b. NHAG provided Union Township with receipt number 73638 for the transaction. 32. John Salaneck personally delivered the truck to the township building on June 7, 2005 to complete the transaction. 33. John Salaneck in his official capacity as Supervisor signed the following NHAG documents on June 7, 2005 acknowledging and approving the sale of the truck to Union Township: a. The bill of sale. b. The delivery checklist. c. The towing and weight restrictions. d. The alteration or modification limits. e. Extra warranty information. f. Power of attorney to correct documents. 34. The vehicle purchased by the township could have been purchased cheaper through the Commonwealth system. 35. Commonwealth contract number CN00007072 is used by municipalities that want to purchase passenger vehicles or light duty trucks through the Commonwealth. a. This contract initially ran from September 1, 2004 through August 31, 2005 and was in effect when Union Township purchased its truck. b. This contract has been extended to August 31, 2006. 36. Included in the contract are a total of three (3) dealers authorized to supply vehicles through this contract. Authorized dealers included: a. Hertrich Fleet Services, Inc. located at 695 Dupont Boulevard, Milford, DE 19963. b. Northeast Auto Outlet, Inc. located at 3301 Grant Ave., Philadelphia, PA 19114. c. Pacifico Marple Ford located at 3055 West Chester Pike, Broomall, PA 19008. 37. New Holland Auto Group was not an authorized dealer under contract number CN00007072. 38. Had Union Township purchased a 2006 Ford F -350 with the option Salaneck selected through Commonwealth contract number CN00007072 it would have cost the township $24,295.45 rather than the $25,275.00 paid to NHAG. 39. Jim Mayo, Commercial Account Manager, Pacifico Marple Ford, handles price quotes for municipalities interested in purchasing a truck through contract number CN00007072. Salaneck, 05 -035 Page 8 a. Pacifico Marple Ford is one of three dealers on Commonwealth contract for light trucks. 40. The following chart details the actual cost of a 2006 model year F -350 with the exact specifications used by Salaneck if purchased from Pacifico Marple Ford through Commonwealth contract as compared to the coast of the purchase from NHAG. NHAG Selected Options NHAG Price Base Vehicle *$18,024.00 6.0 L V -8 Diesel $4,335.00 3.73 Ratio Limited Slip Axel $225.00 Engine Block Heater $30.00 Telescoping TT mirrors manual $107.00 Air Conditioning CFC Free $723.00 Roof Clearance Lights Snow Plow Package Trailer Hitch Receiver 12.5 K Daytime Running Lamps Destination & Delivery 23 U.S. Gal Fuel Charge $100 charge to each vehicle Other Undisclosed Charges $47.00 $73.00 $149.00 $38.00 $850.00 $49.45 $100.00 $494.55 PMF Selected Options Base Vehicle 6.0 L V -8 Diesel 3.73 Ratio Limited Slip Axel Engine Block Heater Telescoping TT mirrors manual Air Conditioning CFC Free Roof Clearance Lights Snow Plow Package Trailer Hitch Receiver 12.5 K Daytime Running Lamps Destination & Delivery 23 U.S. Gal Fuel Charge PMF Price $19,075.00 $4,399.00 $249.00 $24.00 included in base price included in base price $46.00 $71.00 $145.00 $37.00 $200.00 $49.45 Total: $25,275.00 Total: $24,295.45 41. Union Township paid $979.55 more for the truck as a result of Salaneck purchasing it through his employer (NHAG) as opposed to any of the three dealers on Commonwealth contract number CN00007072. 42. Geoffrey Class President /owner of NHAG submitted documentation to the State Ethics Commission detailing actual profit of $1,430.55 as a result of the sale of a 2006 F -350 truck to Union Township. a. Rick Kochel received commission totaling $429.17 from the sale. b. NHAG's dealer profit was $1,001.38. 43. John Salaneck did not receive any compensation or other personal benefits from the sale of the vehicle from NHAG or Rick Kochel. III. DISCUSSION: At all times relevant to this matter, the Respondent, John Salaneck (Salaneck), has been a public official subject to the provisions of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Law, Act 9 of 1989, Pamphlet Law 26, 65 P.S. § 401 et seq., as codified by the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act, Act 93 of 1998, Chapter 11, 65 Pa.C.S. §1101 et seq., which Acts are referred to herein as the "Ethics Act." The allegations are that John Salaneck, as a Union Township Supervisor, Berks County, violated Sections 1103(a), and 1103(f) of the Ethics Act when he participated in discussions, decisions, and actions of the Board of Supervisors resulting in a truck being purchased from New Holland Ford, his employer; when he participated in the Board vote authorizing payment to New Holland Ford; when the Township purchased the truck, in excess of $500.00, without an open and public process; and when he participated in the approval by the Board authorizing the purchase of auto parts from New Holland Ford. Salaneck, 05 -035 Page 9 Pursuant to Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, a public official /public employee is prohibited from engaging in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest. The term "conflict of interest" is defined under Act 9 of 1989/Act 93 of 1998 as follows: Section 1102. Definitions "Conflict" or "conflict of interest." Use by a public official or public employee of the authority of his office or employment or any confidential information received through his holding public office or employment for the private pecuniary benefit of himself, a member of his immediate family or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. "Conflict" or "conflict of interest" does not include an action having a de minimis economic impact or which affects to the same degree a class consisting of the general public or a subclass consisting of an industry, occupation or other group which includes the public official or public employee, a member of his immediate family or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. 65 Pa.C.S. § 1102. Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act prohibits a public official /public employee from using the authority of public office /employment or confidential information received by holding such a public position for the private pecuniary benefit of the public official /public employee himself, any member of his immediate family, or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. Section 1103(f) of Act 9 of 1989 provides: Section 1103. Restricted activities (f) No public official or public employee or his spouse or child or any business in which the person or his spouse or child is associated shall enter into any contract valued at $500 or more with the governmental body with which the public official or public employee is associated or any subcontract valued at $500 or more with any person who has been awarded a contract with the governmental body with which the public official or public employee is associated, unless the contract has been awarded through an open and public process, including prior public notice and subsequent public disclosure of all proposals considered and contracts awarded. In such a case, the public official or public employee shall not have any supervisory or overall responsibility for the implementation or administration of the contract. Any contract or subcontract made in violation of this subsection shall be voidable by a court of competent jurisdiction if the suit is commenced within 90 days of the making of the contract or subcontract. 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(f). Salaneck, 05 -035 Page 10 Section 1103(f) of Act 9 of 1989 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. 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. Salaneck served as a Union Township Supervisor since 2002 and as Roadmaster since January 2003 with duties of oversight as to Township employees, equipment and facilities, and responsibilities for Township equipment, parts and purchases for the road crew. In a private capacity, Salaneck is employed as the Truck Shop Manager /Group Leader for the Commercial Services Department of New Holland Auto Group (NHAG). When auto parts are purchased for Township vehicles, Salaneck and the Deputy Roadmaster discuss the matter. Generally, Salaneck directs the Deputy Roadmaster to solicit quotes from three businesses and Salaneck obtains a quote from NHAG. Salaneck makes the final decision to purchase the auto parts. Usually, the parts are purchased from NHAG because it is generally cheaper than the local auto parts stores. From January 2003 to September 2005, the Township purchased auto parts on 12 different occasions from NHAG as per authorizations from Salaneck. No purchase exceeded $500. Township payments to NHAG result from listings in the monthly bills list. In the Township, bill lists are voted in their entirety by a single motion. Salaneck, as a Supervisor, participated in Board actions to approve bill lists and sign checks that authorized payments to NHAG. Salaneck participated in the approval of 12 Township checks to NHAG and signed seven of those checks. The total sales to NHAG amounted to $2,588.66, of which $647.17 constituted the profit on the sales to the Township. Salaneck did not receive any additional compensation from NHAG as a result of the purchase of auto parts by the Township. In late 2004, Salaneck advocated for the purchase of a new Township truck. Salaneck took action consisting of searching for a vendor, selecting the vendor, negotiating a price and options, and approving the payment. In October 2004, Salaneck initiated discussions with the Board about the need to replace the Township's 1986 model. In a December 30, 2004 meeting, Salaneck seconded a motion and voted to adopt Resolution 2004 -25 that approved a budget that included a line item for the acquisition of a new truck. During the January 2005 meeting, Salaneck informed the Board that money had been set aside for the purchase of a new truck. Salaneck requested that the Board authorize him to solicit prices for a new truck. The Board, with Salaneck also voting, gave him the authorization. Salaneck then emailed the account manager at NHAG that he (Salaneck) was authorized to seek bids for a truck and listed the specifications for the new truck. Salaneck also secured quotes for a new truck from the PACC piggyback contract. At a February 2005 Board meeting, Salaneck advised the other Supervisors that he looked into prices for a pickup truck purchased through a Commonwealth contract and obtained a price quote of $24,727. In actuality, that quote was the price received from Salaneck's employer, NHAG. At the meeting, Salaneck seconded the motion and voted to purchase the truck. The Board was not aware that the new truck was not purchased through the Commonwealth purchasing system. Salaneck, 05 -035 Page 11 At the same meeting, Salaneck informed the Board that he obtained price quotes for a snow plow and recommended purchasing a plow for $5,195. Salaneck also seconded and voted in favor of the motion to buy the plow package. Both the motion to purchase the truck and plow passed by a 2 -0 vote. The truck purchase came before the Board of Supervisors at its June 2005 meeting. Salaneck motioned and voted to approve a bill list that included the payment of the truck from NHAG. That motion passed on a 3 -0 vote. Salaneck stated that the price increased because the Township would be getting a 2006 truck rather than a 2005 model. The Township issued a check in the amount of $25,275 to NHAG. Salaneck's signature appeared on that Township check. After Salaneck personally delivered the truck to the Township from NHAG, he signed, as Supervisor, the various documents acknowledging and approving the sale of the truck to the Township. The truck could have been purchased by the Township at a cheaper price through the Commonwealth contract. NHAG was not an authorized dealer under the Commonwealth contract. If the Township had purchased the truck through the Commonwealth contract, the truck price would have been $24,295.45 rather than the $25,275 paid to NHAG. Thus, the Township paid $979.55 more for the truck as a result of Salaneck purchasing the vehicle from NHAG rather than through the Commonwealth contract. Salaneck did not receive any compensation or other benefits from the sale of the vehicle from NHAG to the Township. 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 a violation of Section 1103(a) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Law, 65 Pa.C.S. §1103(a) occurred in relation to Salaneck participating in discussions, decisions and actions of the Board of Supervisors which resulted in the purchase of a truck from New Holland Ford, a business with which Salaneck is associated; and b. That a violation of Section 1103(a) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Law, 65 Pa.C.S. §1103(a) occurred regarding Salaneck authorizing payment to New Holland Ford; and c. That a violation of Section 1103(a) [sic] of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Law, 65 Pa.C.S. §1103(f) occurred when the truck purchase, in excess of $500.00, was made without an open and public process; and d. That no violation of Section 1103(a) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Law, 65 Pa.C.S. §1103(a) occurred relating to Salaneck's participation in the authorization of purchases of auto parts from New Holland Ford, including but not limited to, making purchases and approving payments as the individual Salaneck, 05 -035 Page 12 purchases were de minimis. e. "Section 1103(j) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Law, 65 Pa.C.S. Section 1103(j), John Salaneck had the right to vote at the February 21, 2005, board of supervisors meeting, at which meeting the board voted to purchase a truck from New Holland Ford on the basis that only two supervisors were present and the governing body would not have been able to take action without Mr. Salaneck's vote." Section 1103(j) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Law requires a public official to publicly announce and disclose the nature of his interests and file a written memorandum after first abstaining from voting. There is no record of Mr. Salaneck first abstaining from voting or filing a written memorandum with the board. 4. Salaneck agrees to make payment in the amount of $1,000 in settlement of this matter payable to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and forwarded to the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the final adjudication in this matter." Consent Agreement, ¶3 and ¶4. In applying Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act to the above allegation, there were uses of authority of office on the part of Salaneck regarding the purchase of a new Township truck from NHAG, the business with which Salaneck is associated. But for the fact that Salaneck was a supervisor, he would not have been in a position to participate in the process of a truck selection from his employer, NHAG. It was Salaneck who suggested to the Board that the Township needed to purchase a new truck. It was Salaneck who did the research and brought forth quotes as to the cost of a new truck. It was Salaneck who effectuated the purchase of the truck from NHAG rather than through the Commonwealth contract that could have resulted in the truck being purchased at a lower price. All such actions by Salaneck were uses of authority of office. See, Juliante, Order 809. The uses of authority of office resulted in the purchase of the truck from NHAG. That purchase resulted in a private pecuniary benefit consisting of the profit that was received on the sale of the truck by NHAG to the Township. Lastly, that private pecuniary benefit inured to NHAG, a business with which Salaneck is associated, as that term is defined under the Ethics Act. Accordingly, Salaneck violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he participated in discussions, decisions and actions that resulted in the purchase of a truck from New Holland Ford, a business with which he is associated. See, Laventure, Order 1002. There was also a use of authority of office on the part of Salaneck as to the authorization of payment regarding the purchase of the truck by the Township from NHAG. Once again, that use of authority of office resulted in a private pecuniary benefit consisting of the profit on the sale of the truck from NHAG to the Township. Lastly, that private pecuniary benefit inured to NHAG, a business with which Salaneck is associated. Accordingly, Salaneck violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he authorized payment from the Township to NHAG, a business with which he is associated, as to the purchase of a Township truck. See, Joines, Order 978. Salaneck, 05 -035 Page 13 As to Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act, this provision allows a public official, spouse, child or business with which he or the spouse or child is associated to enter into a contract with a governmental body. However, if the contract is $500 or more, it must be awarded through an open and public process. In this case, NHAG, a business with which Salaneck is associated, entered into a contract with the Township as to the sale of a new truck for the price of $25,275. Although Salaneck purportedly researched different dealers that were on the Commonwealth contract, the truck was purchased from NHAG at a higher price through a process that was not open and public. Accordingly, Salaneck violated Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act when a truck was purchased by the Township from NHAG, a business with which Salaneck is associated, at a price in excess of $500 when the contract was not awarded through an open and public process. See, Walsh, Order 955. Turning to the matter of the purchase of auto parts from NHAG, the stipulated findings reflect that there were uses of authority of office on the part of Salaneck. Salaneck discussed the purchases with the Deputy Roadmaster who was directed to solicit quotes. Salaneck also solicited quotes from NHAG. Salaneck made the final decision as to purchases and in several cases made those purchases from his employer, NHAG. Such actions were uses of authority of office. The uses of authority of office resulted in private pecuniary benefits to NHAG, the business with which Salaneck is associated, to the extent of the profits made by NHAG on the sale of the auto parts. Normally, since all of the requisite elements of Section 1103(a) are established, the result would be a violation of that provision of law. However, there are two exceptions to the prohibition of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, one of which is the de minimis exclusion. A review of the purchases of auto parts from NHAG reflected that the parts ranged in amount from a low of $65.01 to a high of $351.44. All such individual purchases were in the ambit of the de minimis exclusion. Accordingly, Salaneck did not violate Section 1103(a) regarding his participation as to the purchase of auto parts from NHAG, a business with which he is associated, in that such individual purchases were de minimis. See, Goldinger, Order 1340. Lastly, we note that the parties in their Consent Agreement have a stipulation regarding Section 1103(j) of the Ethics Act vis -a -vis Salaneck's voting at a February 21, 2005 Board of Supervisors meeting where one of the other two supervisors was apparently absent. Aside from the fact that Section 1103(j) of the Ethics Act is not part of the allegation in this case, we nevertheless note that Section 1103(j) has a specific provision for three member boards that allows voting when there is a tie vote. If the condition of Section 1103(j) is met, then the conflicted member may vote provided the requisite disclosures required by Section 1103(j) had been made. 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, Salaneck is directed to make payment in the amount of $1,000 in settlement of this matter payable to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and forwarded to the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the final adjudication in this matter. 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. John Salaneck, as Supervisor of Union Township, Berks County, is a public official subject to the provisions of Act 9 of 1989 as codified by Act 93 of 1998. Salaneck, 05 -035 Page 14 2. Salaneck violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he participated in discussions, decisions and actions that resulted in the purchase of a truck from New Holland Ford, a business with which he is associated. 3. Salaneck violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he authorized payment from the Township to NHAG, a business with which he is associated, as to the purchase of a truck by the Township. 4. Salaneck violated Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act when a truck was purchased by the Township from NHAG, a business with which Salaneck is associated, at a price in excess of $500 when the contract was not awarded through an open and public process. 5. Salaneck did not violate Section 1103(a) regarding his participation as to the purchase of auto parts from NHAG, a business with which he is associated, in that such individual purchases were de minimis. In Re: John Salaneck, Respondent ORDER NO. 1410 File Docket: 05 -035 Date Decided: 10/4/2006 Date Mailed: 10/20/2006 1 John Salaneck, as Supervisor of Union Township, Berks County, violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he participated in discussions, decisions and actions that resulted in the purchase of a truck from New Holland Ford, a business with which he is associated. 2. Salaneck violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he authorized payment from the Township to NHAG, a business with which he is associated, as to the purchase of a truck by the Township. 3. Salaneck violated Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act when a truck was purchased by the Township from NHAG, a business with which Salaneck is associated, at a price in excess of $500 when the contract was not awarded through an open and public process. 4. Salaneck did not violate Section 1103(a) regarding his participation as to the purchase of auto parts from NHAG, a business with which he is associated, in that such individual purchases were de minimis. 5. Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Salaneck is directed to make payment in the amount of $1,000 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