HomeMy WebLinkAbout1418 St. PeterIn Re: Andrew St. Peter
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
04 -046
Order No. 1418
10/4/2006
10/20/2006
This is a final adjudication of the State Ethics Commission.
Procedurally, the Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission conducted
an investigation regarding a possible violation of the Public Official and Employee Ethics
Act, Act 9 of 1989, P.L. 26, 65 P.S. § 401 et seq., as codified by Act 93 of 1998, Chapter
11, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq., by the above -named Respondent. At the commencement of
its investigation, the Investigative Division served upon Respondent written notice of the
specific allegation(s). Upon completion of its investigation, the Investigative Division
issued and served upon Respondent a Findings Report identified as an "Investigative
Complaint." An Answer was filed and a hearing was held. The record is complete.
Effective December 15, 1998, Act 9 of 1989 was repealed and replaced by Chapter
11 of Act 93 of 1998, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq., which essentially repeats Act 9 of 1989
and provides for the completion of pending matters under Act 93 of 1998.
This adjudication of the State Ethics Commission is issued under Act 93 of 1998
and will be made available as a public document thirty days after the mailing date noted
above. However, reconsideration may be requested. Any reconsideration request must be
received at this Commission within thirty days of the mailing date and must include a
detailed explanation of the reasons as to why reconsideration should be granted in
conformity with 51 Pa. Code § 21.29(b). A request for reconsideration will not affect the
finality of this adjudication but will defer its public release pending action on the request by
the Commission.
The files in this case will remain confidential in accordance with Chapter 11 of Act
93 of 1998. Any person who violates confidentiality of the Ethics Act is guilty of a
misdemeanor subject to a fine of not more than $1,000 or imprisonment for not more than
one year. Confidentiality does not preclude discussing this case with an attorney at law.
St. Peter, 04 -046
Page 2
I. ALLEGATIONS:
That Andrew St. Peter, a (public official /public employee) in his capacity as
Chairman and Member of the Westfield Township Municipal Authority violated the
following provisions of the State Ethics Act (Act 93 of 1998) when he used the authority of
his public position to obtain a private pecuniary gain when he collected payments from the
authority in excess of that authorized and approved by the authority; and when he
completed and submitted invoices to the authority which contained charges in excess of
the actual amount resulting in payments being made to him from a contractor; and when he
failed to file Statements of Financial Interests for the 2000 and 2003 calendar years.
§ 1103. Restricted Activities
(a) Conflict of interest. —No public official or public
employee shall engage in conduct that constitutes a conflict of
interest.
65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a).
§ 1104. Statement of financial interests required to be filed
(a) Public official or public employee. - -Each public
official of the Commonwealth shall file a statement of financial
interests for the preceding calendar year with the commission
no later than May 1 of each year that he holds such a position
and of the year after he leaves such a position. Each public
employee and public official of the Commonwealth shall file a
statement of financial interests for the preceding calendar year
with the department, agency, body or bureau in which he is
employed or to which he is appointed or elected no later than
May 1 of each year that he holds such a position and of the
year after he leaves such a position. Any other public
employee or public official shall file a statement of financial
interests with the governing authority of the political
subdivision by which he is employed or within which he is
appointed or elected no later than May 1 of each year that he
holds such a position and of the year after he leaves such a
position. Persons who are full -time or part -time solicitors for
political subdivisions are required to file under this section.
65 Pa.C.S. § 1104(a).
§ 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. The term 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.
St. Peter, 04 -046
Page 3
65 Pa. C. S. § 1102.
II. FINDINGS:
A. Pleadings
1 ... the Investigative Division initiated a preliminary inquiry on September 7, 2004.
2. On November 4, 2004, a letter was forwarded to Andrew St. Peter, by the
Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission, informing him that
information against him was received by the Investigative Division and that a full
investigation was being commenced.
a. Said letter was forwarded by certified mail, no. 7001 0360 0001 4061 3037.
b. The domestic return receipt bore the signature of Andrew St. Peter, with a
delivery date of November 5, 2004.
3. On November 5, 2004, the Investigative Division issued an Amended Notice of
Investigation to Andrew St. Peter advising him that the allegations contained in the
November 4, 2004, letter were being amended.
a. Said letter was forwarded by certified mail no. 7004 0750 0002 8074 7285.
b. The domestic return receipt bore the signature of Andrew St. Peter, with a
delivery date of November 8, 2004.
4. On September 12, 2005, the Investigative Division issued an Amended Notice of
Investigation to Andrew St. Peter advising him that the allegations contained in the
November 4, 2004, and November 5, 2004, letters were being amended.
a. Said letter was forwarded by certified mail no. 7004 2510 0003 5004 0825.
b. The domestic return receipt bore the signature of Andrew St. Peter, with a
delivery date of September 13, 2005.
5. On September 20, 2005, the Investigative Division issued an Amended Notice of
Investigation to Andrew St. Peter advising him that the allegations contained in the
November 4, 2004, November 5, 2004, and November 12, 2005, letters were being
amended.
a. Said letter was forwarded by certified mail no. 7004 2510 0003 5004 0863.
b. The domestic return receipt bore the signature of Andrew St. Peter, with a
delivery date of September 21, 2005.
6. On February 14, 2005, the Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission
filed an application for a ninety day extension of time to complete the Investigation.
7 The Commission issued an order on February 28, 2005, granting the ninety day
extension.
8. Periodic notice letters were forwarded to Andrew St. Peter in accordance with the
provisions of the Ethics Law advising him of the general status of the investigation.
9. The Investigative Complaint was mailed to the Respondent on September 23, 2005.
St. Peter, 04 -046
Page 4
10. The Westfield Township Municipal Authority was created by the township's Board of
Supervisors ... .
a. The authority itself consisted of a five (5) member board.
11. The Westfield Township Municipal Authority specifically was created to acquire
funding for a proposed sewer project.
a. The proposed project involved the construction of three collection and
conveyance systems to provide sanitary sewer services to areas in Westfield
Township, surrounding the Borough of Westfield, Tioga County.
12. The Westfield Township Municipal Authority held its first meeting on January 11,
2001.
a. During that meeting the Authority's by -laws were presented and adopted.
b. Articles of incorporation were identified as being filed with the Department of
State.
13. Upon its formation, the Municipal Authority took immediate steps to get the sewer
project underway.
a. Sweetland Engineering Company, from State College, PA, was hired to
assist the complete [sic] the technical aspects of the planned sewer system
and submit it to PennVest.
b. Municipal Authority Board Members were used to administer the grant
instead of Sweetland Engineering as a cost savings measure.
14. [PennVest] Funding was provided to the Authority on a reimbursement basis.
a. Initial funding was obtained by way of a $250,000 line of credit from C &N
Bank, Knoxville, PA.
15. The Westfield Township Municipal Authority Board took action on at least four (4)
separate occasions setting wages for Authority members working for the Authority.
a. On February 14, 2001, the Westfield Township Municipal Authority enacted
a resolution to pay Authority members "$10.00 an hour for Saturdays worked
on easements."
1. Meeting minutes do not identify which Authority members were
present for this meeting.
b. On December 13, 2001, the Westfield Township Municipal Authority passed
a motion to pay Authority members $10.00 per hour above regular meetings
for any work performed by an Authority member and 35 cents per mile.
1. This motion was made by Stanley Brubaker, seconded by June
Starke and approved.
2. Andrew St. Peter was present at this meeting.
c. On February 14, 2002, the Westfield Township Municipal Authority Board
approved a wage of $10.00 per hour for Authority workers to do easements.
St. Peter, 04 -046
Page 5
1. Andrew St. Peter is not listed as being present for this meeting.
d. During the Westfield Township Municipal Authority reorganization meeting
held on January 9, 2003, the hourly rate of Authority members outside of
meetings was set at $10.00 per hour with mileage the same as 2002.
1. Andrew St. Peter was present for this meeting.
16. Westfield Township Municipal Authority Board members performed work for the
Authority including but not limited to serving easements /right -of -ways, site
inspections and construction monitoring.
a. Board members including Andrew St. Peter, would submit timesheets
detailing hours worked on a monthly basis.
b. These timesheets were approved for payment by the board.
c. Timesheets did not detail start and stop times or specific duties performed.
d. Timesheets listed only dates and total hours worked.
e. Payroll for employees were [sic] included as part of the authorities [sic]
monthly bill lists.
17. On March 28, 2002, the Westfield Township Municipal Authority officially awarded a
contract to Greenland Construction, Inc. to install the main sewer line.
a. Funding for Greenland Construction's work was part of the PennVest grant.
b. Local contractors, including Chapman Contracting, bid sections of the project
and were selected to hook in customers to the main line.
18. ... St. Peter authorized Chapman to do the work [needed to repair a blockage in a
sewer line installed as part of the sewer project].
19. Repairs needed included excavating down approximately fourteen feet to repair a
blocked pipe, additional concrete, site cleanup, seeding and mulching.
a. Work occurred at the site during the months of April and June 2003 as a
result of weather.
b. Chapman Construction supplied all equipment and labor used on the
project.
c. Materials used on the project were supplied by both St. Peter and Chapman
Construction.
1. St. Peter supplied the pipe and miscellaneous materials needed while
Chapman provide [sic] the concrete and site restoration material
used.
d. Andrew St. Peter oversaw the project.
20. St. Peter was at the site sporadically during the repairs but did not perform physical
labor.
a. Physical labor was performed by Chapman Construction.
St. Peter, 04 -046
Page 6
b. St. Peter was onsite the majority of the first day but sporadically the rest of
the week.
1. St. Peter would check the work progress and leave.
c. Authority member Stanley Brubaker also stopped by the site during the
repairs.
d. Chapman did not log the total hours he was onsite performing the work.
e. Chapman did not keep track of the hours St. Peter was onsite.
21. As a result of wet conditions, Chapman Construction was unable to complete all the
repairs and site restoration during the initial phase of the work.
a. Chapman Construction returned in June 2003 to complete the project.
b. Chapman Construction did not invoice the Westfield Township Municipal
Authority for any of the repairs prior to the completion of the entire project.
22. Chapman did not have a breakdown of costs associated with the project
immediately available for St. Peter.
a. St. Peter advised Chapman that Chapman was required to charge the
prevailing state wage /rates for that type of work since it was a state funded
project.
b. St. Peter told Chapman he would total the project costs based on prevailing
state wages /rates but would need blank invoices from Chapman to complete.
c. Chapman provided St. Peter with ... invoices.
23. On or about July 12, 2005, St. Peter contacted Chapman advising that he had
Chapman's check ready and requested that Chapman stop by the Authority office to
receive the payment.
a. Upon arrival at the Authority office, St. Peter provided Chapman with
authority check no. 324 in the amount of $9,208.88 and the two completed
invoices.
b. The front side of this check was signed by Jeff VanDusen and Andrew St.
Peter.
24. Neither invoice prepared by St. Peter had the date of the services provided listed
on it.
a. Both invoices are signed by Andrew St. Peter as customer.
25. Chapman Contracting invoice in the amount of $4,901.24 completed by St. Peter
contained the following breakdown of services provided:
a. Move in fee $ 150.00
Trackhoe rental @ $60.00 x 19 hours 1,140.00
Operator, 19 x $32.00 per hour 608.00
Plumber,16 $24.94 per hour 399.04
Laborers, 5 a@ $18.86 per hour, 19 hours 1,791.70
St. Peter, 04 -046
Page 7
Supplies
Admin, 5 @ $49.06
Cleanup reseeding and mulch
a. Design & Admin.
Move in fees
Backhoe & operator, $65.00 per hour x 8 hrs
Concrete, 4 yards @ $80.00 per yard
Supplies
Laborers, $18.86 x 3 employees
Clean up, seeding and mulching
187.20
245.30
380.00
$4,901.24
b. This invoice contained the signature of Andrew St. Peter as customer with a
date of April 9, 2003.
26. Chapman Contracting invoice prepared by St. Peter in the amount of $4,307.64
contained the following breakdown of services provided:
$ 1,785.00
150.00
520.00
320.00
398.00
452.64
682.00
$ 4,307.64
b. This invoice contained the signature of Andrew St. Peter as customer with a
date of June 9, 2003.
27. Both amounts [for administrative fees and labor hours] were determined by St.
Peter.
a. The administration fee of $1,785.00 was determined and included by St.
Peter.
b. No other invoices submitted by Chapman Contracting to the authority had an
administrative fee included with it.
28. St. Peter's charges on the invoices included laborers, 5 @ $18.86 per hour /19
hours $1,791.70.
29. St. Peter also calculated the rate and number of hours to be charged for use of a
plumber.
a. St. Peter listed on the invoice 16 plumber hours @ $24.94 /hour totaling
$339.04.
b. A plumber was not used on the project.
30. Subsequent to issuing the authority check to Chapman, St. Peter directed that
Chapman issued [sic] a payment to St. Peter in the amount of $4,600.00, one -half
of the amount St. Peter arranged to have paid to Chapman by the authority.
a. St. Peter told Chapman that the payment was for the administrative portion
of the project.
31. On July 12, 2003, Keith Chapman d /b /a Chapman Contracting issued check number
3991 in the amount of $4,600.00 to Andrew St. Peter.
a. St. Peter directed Chapman issue him the check in that amount.
b. The reverse side of the check contains Andrew St. Peter's signature and
deposit information for Northwest Savings Bank, Westfield, PA on July 18,
St. Peter, 04 -046
Page 8
2003.
c. St. Peter was not an employee of Chapman's during the project.
32. Chapman had concerns over the legality of writing a check to St. Peter and inquired
who would be responsible for the taxes which would be due on the full amount.
a. Chapman did not want to pay taxes on the full amount when he turned half
over to St. Peter.
b. St. Peter instructed Chapman to issue him a 1099 miscellaneous income
form at the end of the year.
c. Chapman d /b /a Chapman Contracting issued a 1099 miscellaneous income
form to Andrew St. Peter documenting non - employee compensation in the
amount of $4,600.00 during the 2003 calendar year.
33. Andrew St. Peter included the payment from Chapman on his federal income tax
filing for the 2003 calendar year.
a. St. Peter did not turn any portion of the payment over to the authority.
(The following findings relate to the allegation that St. Peter collected payments
in excess of the amount authorized by the authority.)
34. On June 12, 2003, St. Peter submitted invoice number 2003 -02 to the authority for
five "(5) days of leave in the amount of $49.06 per hour, $1,962.40 total."
a. St. Peter's invoice did not identify dates worked or duties performed.
b. The $1,962.40 equates to 40 hours @ $49.06 per hour.
35. Leave records for Andrew St. Peter as an employee of the United States Postal
Service do not clearly establish whether he took any vacation or annual lave [sic]
during this time frame.
a. As postmaster of the Elkland, PA Post Office, St. Peter does not have to log
start and stop times.
36. Invoice No. 2003 -02 was paid by authority check number 309 dated June 12, 2003.
a. The front side of this check contains the signatures of Jeff VanDusen and
Andrew St. Peter.
b. The backside of this check contains deposit information for St. Peter at
Northwest Savings Bank.
c. This invoice was approved by the authority board during their June 12, 2003,
meeting.
37. Minutes from the Westfield Township Municipal Authority's June 12, 2003, meeting
include the following discussion on St. Peters' $1,962.40 invoice:
a. "Andy St. Peter submitted a bill for 5 -days of annual leave at $49.06 per hour
based on Pennvest Act 537 wages total $1,962.40. Andy submitted no
hours for month of May. This was discussed at May meeting."
St. Peter, 04 -046
Page 9
b. The payment was approved with the rest of the authority bills on the
"May /June 03" bill list.
38. Minutes from the Westfield Township Municipal Authority's May 15, 2003, meeting
do not include any recorded discussion on wages for St. Peter.
a. Discussed were outstanding invoices from Sweetland Engineering, Westfield
Borough, and discussions St. Peter had with Greenland Construction on
paying for the repairs at the pump station.
39. The authority previously approved $10.00 per hour compensation for board
members providing services to the authority.
40. St. Peter provided information to investigators for the State Ethics Commission that
he spent five days total working on the project with Chapman during April and June
2003.
a. ... [St. Peter's June 12, 2003,] invoice was paid three (3) days after he
completed the June 9, 2003, invoice to the authority for Chapman
Construction at projects end.
41. On January 24, 2003, St. Peter, in his official capacity as Chairman of the Westfield
Township Sewer Authority, signed a "Management Representation letter" submitted
to Walter H. Roland, Audit Specialist, Public Protection and Recreation
Comptroller's Office, Audits Division, P.O. Box 8005, Harrisburg, PA 17105.
This representation letter related to PennVest applications for payment
covering the entire project.
b. St. Peter represented that there was [sic]:
1. No frauds involving management or employees who have significant
roles in the management control structure.
2. No frauds involving other employees that could have a material affect
[sic] on the PennVest application for payment.
3. All related party transactions associated with the project have been
disclosed.
a.
42. An exit conference was held on January 24, 2003, at the Westfield Township
Municipal Authority office; in attendance were the following individuals:
a.
Name
Andrew St. Peter
Walter Roland
Joshua J. Huyett
Title
Chairman
Audit Specialist
Audit Specialist
Organization
Westfield Twp. Municipal Authority
PP &R Comptroller's Office
PP &R Comptroller's Office
b . Compensation received by Westfield Township Municipal Authority Board
members for working on the project was not questioned as an audit finding.
43. On or about January 27, 2004, St. Peter was requested by the board of supervisors
to provide justification for hours worked during December 2003 and January 2004.
a. St. Peter submitted a synopsis of hours worked dated January 23, 2004.
b. St. Peter estimated spending sixty -four (64) hours doing administrative work
and sixteen (16) hours doing maintenance.
St. Peter, 04 -046
Page 10
c. St. Peter's justification letter did not detail specific days or hours worked but
listed projects worked on.
44. The Westfield Township Board of Supervisors declined to pay St. Peter's hours
determining that his description of the dates and times of the services provided
were too vague.
a. On March 16, 2004, St. Peter filed a civil complaint in the amount of
$1,724.32 against the Westfield Township Supervisors for "non payment of
hours worked in December 2003 and up to January 5, 2004."
b. On May 18, 2004, a judgment was entered for the Westfield Township
Supervisors in the amount of $0.00.
45. Statements of Financial Interests forms on file with Westfield Township include the
following filings by Andrew St. Peter as a Municipal Authority member:
a. Calendar Year: 2002
Filed: 01/10/03 on SEC Form 1/03
Position: Chairman
Political Subdivision: Not listed
Creditors: None
Direct /Indirect Income: U.S. Postal Service, Westfield Township Sewer
Authority
All Other Financial Interests: None
b. Calendar Year: 2000
No forms filed.
46. Financial records of the Westfield Township Municipal Authority confirm payments
issued to St. Peter during calendar years 2001 and 2003 when he did not have a
Statement of Financial Interests form filed.
a. St. Peter was issued a 1099 miscellaneous income for calendar year 2003
documenting income totaling $7,860.
B. Testimon
47. Jeffrey Van Dusen ( "Van Dusen") is the Westfield Township ( "Township ")
Secretary- Treasurer and Building Code Administrator.
a. Van Dusen has served as Township Secretary- Treasurer since April 13,
2006.
(1)
(3)
As Township Secretary- Treasurer, Van Dusen is the official custodian
of the Township's records.
(2) The Township Secretary- Treasurer who served prior to Van Dusen
was Beth Hurler.
The Township Secretary who served prior to Beth Hurler was Marty
H i rak.
b. ID -10 consists of the minutes of a December 18, 2000, special meeting of
the Township Board of Supervisors at which the Board authorized the
creation of the Westfield Township Municipal Authority ( "Authority "). (See,
Finding 56).
St. Peter, 04 -046
Page 11
c. Each year when the Authority had a reorganizational meeting, St. Peter was
appointed Chairman of the Authority Board and Van Dusen was appointed
Secretary- Treasurer of the Authority.
d. ID -11 consists of the by -laws of the Authority. (See, Finding 57).
(1) Per the Authority by -laws, three of the five Authority Board Members
constituted a quorum for the transaction of business.
(2) Per the Authority by -laws, the fixing of compensation for an Authority
Board Member had to be approved by three of the five Authority
Board Members.
e. The Authority was formed after the Township Supervisors were mandated by
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP) to install a sewer system in portions of the Township where
there were two schools and homes with malfunctioning systems, which
project is hereinafter also referred to as the "Sewer Project."
f. DEP imposed a deadline of 2002 for completion of the Sewer Project.
(1) Failure to meet the deadline for the Sewer Project would have
resulted in fines being imposed upon the Township.
(2) The Sewer Project was completed by no later than the end of
December 2002.
g.
(1) When the Authority was formed, the Authority Board consisted of five
members, including Van Dusen, St. Peter, Gary Harper, Robert Ruef
and June Starke.
The Sewer Project was funded through a Pennsylvania Infrastructure
Investment Authority ( "PENNVEST ") grant.
(1) ID -9 consists of the Authority's grant application for PENNVEST
funding for the Sewer Project. (See, Finding 55).
(a) The request for funding from PENNVEST was in the amount of
$1,507,853. (See, Finding 55 b).
(2) The PENNVEST grant was for the main line and pump station(s).
(3) The PENNVEST grant did not apply to the expenses for lateral
hookups performed by contractors.
h. ID -8 consists of the Grant Agreement between the Authority and PENNVEST
relative to the Sewer Project. (See, Finding 54).
(1) PENNVEST approved a grant to the Authority in the amount of
$1,367,739.00 relative to the Sewer Project. (ID -8, page 7). (See,
Finding 54 b).
The Engineer for the Sewer Project was Sweetland Engineering &
Associates, Inc. (hereinafter also referred to as "Sweetland Engineering ").
(See, Finding 54 c).
St. Peter, 04 -046
Page 12
(1) Ron Senior was one of the authorized representatives of Sweetland
Engineering who dealt with the Authority on the Sewer Project.
(2) ID -26 consists of excerpts from the contract specification book for the
Sewer Project, which contract specification book contained contract
documents and specifications and was prepared by Sweetland
Engineering. (See, Finding 69).
j. The Contractor for the Sewer Project was Greenland Construction, Inc.
(See, Finding 54 d).
k. At the commencement of the Sewer Project, the projected hookup fee was
$1,000 per hookup.
(1) Ultimately, property owners did not have to pay hookup fees as a
result of the Authority's use of school district funds to pay for them.
(2) Issues arose regarding the use of school district funds to pay for the
hook up fees.
(3)
As Authority Secretary- Treasurer, Van Dusen took the minutes of the
Authority meetings.
(1) Minutes were taken during reorganization meetings and at each
regular monthly meeting of the Authority.
(2) Each month, a copy of the Authority's meeting minutes from the most
recent meeting was provided to the Township Board of Supervisors,
prior to such minutes being approved by the Authority Board the
following month.
The copies of Authority meeting minutes provided to the Township
Board of Supervisors were stamped "Unauthorized" because, at the
time of submission to the Board of Supervisors, the minutes had not
yet been approved by the Authority Board.
m. At each reorganizational meeting of the Authority Board, the Authority
members were authorized to perform services for the Authority at the rate of
pay of $10 per hour plus prevailing mileage.
(1) Authority Members had an equal opportunity to perform work outside
of meetings for compensation, but some Authority Members did not
desire to do the work.
(3)
Currently, payments are being made from user fees to reimburse the
school district for its funds used to pay hook up fees.
n. ID -12 consists of the official minutes of various Authority Board meetings.
(1) ID -12, page 1 consists of the minutes of the February 14, 2001,
Authority Board meeting, at which meeting compensation was set for
working Authority Board Members for the first time. (See, Finding 58
a).
(2) ID -12, page 2 consists of the minutes of the February 14, 2002,
Authority Board meeting, at which meeting the Authority Board again
authorized compensation for working Authority Board Members.
St. Peter, 04 -046
Page 13
(See, Finding 58 b).
ID -12, page 3 consists of the minutes of the January 9, 2003,
Authority Board meeting, at which meeting the Authority Board again
authorized compensation for working Authority Board Members.
(See, Finding 58 c).
(a) These minutes bear the stamp of the word, "Unauthorized,"
indicating that they were submitted to the Township Board of
Supervisors prior to being approved by the Authority Board.
(b) These minutes were authorized by the Authority Board
following submission to the Township Board of Supervisors.
o. In order to get paid for work performed for the Authority, Authority Board
Members were required to submit monthly invoices /timesheets to Van Dusen
on which were recorded the dates the Board Member worked, the amount of
time worked, the nature of the work, and any mileage.
ID -19 consists of invoices /timesheets submitted by Respondent St. Peter to
the Authority for mileage and work performed for the Authority outside of
Authority Board meetings. (See, Finding 66).
(1) Most of the invoices bear a stamped insignia of the word "Paid," with
handwritten notations of the check number by which the invoice was
paid and the date of such payment. (See, Finding 66 a).
p.
q.
(3)
(2) The rate of pay that applied to these invoices was $10 per hour.
ID -15 consists of certain bank records for the Authority's checking account at
Citizens & Northern Bank in Knoxville, Pennsylvania. (See, Finding 60).
(1) Checks issued from the account required two authorized signatures.
(2) Authority check number 309 dated June 12, 2003, was issued
payable to St. Peter in the amount of $1,962.40. (ID -15, pages 1 -2).
Authority check number 324 dated July 12, 2003, was issued payable
to Chapman Contracting in the amount of $9,208.88. (ID -15, pages 1,
3).
r. Following the construction of the Sewer Project, a problem developed
resulting in sewage backing up into the bathroom of the Sean Lias residence
(which problem is also referred to herein as the "pump station failure ").
(3)
s. Keith Chapman, owner of Chapman Contracting, repaired the pump station
failure.
t. The following notation in the April 16, 2003, Authority meeting minutes
referred to the repair of the pump station failure:
Andy reported on line failure at pump station & it was repaired.
Working with engineering firm & contractor on who is going to
pay for repairs.
ID -12, page 4. (See, Finding 58 d).
St. Peter, 04 -046
Page 14
u. ID -14 consists of various bills and documents relating to bills for work
performed by Chapman Contracting for the Authority during the year 2003.
(See, Finding 59).
(1) ID -14, pages 2 -3 consist of the two bills submitted for Chapman
Contracting's work as to the pump station failure. (See, Finding 59
a).
(a) Both bills were signed by Respondent St. Peter, indicating his
authorization that the work was done.
(b) Together the bills total $9,208.88. (See, Finding 59 a (1)).
(2) Both bills were paid by the Authority at the same time with Authority
check number 324 dated July 12, 2003, at ID -15, page 3.
(a) Van Dusen initially testified that these two bills were paid in
two installments rather than by one payment, but upon
reviewing Authority check number 324, Van Dusen confirmed
that both bills were in fact paid at the same time with Authority
check number 324. (Tr. at 76 -77; 90 -91).
(b) Authority check number 324 was issued under the authorized
signatures of Van Dusen and St. Peter.
v. At the time Authority check number 324 was issued to Chapman Contracting,
Van Dusen was not aware of whether Keith Chapman gave any money to
Respondent St. Peter.
(1) Van Dusen was not aware of the payment by Chapman to St. Peter
until he was informed of it in 2004.
w. St. Peter made comments that he should be paid more than the $10 per hour
that he was being paid for Authority work.
(1) St. Peter stated that he was taking time off from work and that the
Authority should pay him what he was losing at work.
(2) St. Peter proposed to Authority Board Members Van Dusen and
Brubaker that he (St. Peter) be paid between $45 to $49 per hour for
Authority work.
Van Dusen stated to Authority Board Member Brubaker that the
system can't justify paying somebody $45 to $49 an hour." (Tr. at 80).
(4) Van Dusen and Brubaker discussed a possible rate of $25 per hour,
but the Authority Board never approved any increase in the hourly
rate of compensation for St. Peter.
(3)
x. ID -24 consists of 1099 forms for nonemployee compensation paid by the
Authority to St. Peter in 2002 and 2003.
(1) In 2002, the Authority paid to St. Peter nonemployee compensation in
the amount of $25,030.00. (ID -24, page 1).
(2) In 2003, the Authority paid to St. Peter nonemployee compensation in
the amount of $7,860.00. (ID -24, page 2).
St. Peter, 04 -046
Page 15
y.
ID -17 consists of a bill submitted by St. Peter to the Authority for 5 days of
leave, calculated at the rate of $49.06 per hour, for a total of $1,962.40.
(See, Finding 64).
(1) Van Dusen testified that at different times during the Sewer Project,
St. Peter stated that $49.06 per hour was his rate of pay in his
employment position at the post office.
(2) The invoice at ID -17 was paid by the Authority on June 12, 2003.
(3) ID -12, page 8 consists of the minutes of the June 12, 2003, Authority
Board meeting, the latter portion of which minutes provides:
Meeting adjourn [sic] at 7:35 pm to go into
executive session.
ID -12, page 8; (See, Finding 58 f).
(4) The minutes of the May 15, 2003, Authority Board meeting do not
reference discussions as to St. Peter's hours or compensation. (ID-
12, pages 6 -7).
According to the official minutes of the June 12, 2003, Authority
Board meeting, there were only two Authority Board Members present
at that meeting, specifically, Van Dusen and St. Peter.
(6) The invoice at ID -17 was paid with Authority check number 309
payable to St. Peter in the amount of $1,962.40. (ID -15, page 2).
(See, Finding 60 a).
(a) The check required signatures of two Authority Members.
(b) The check was signed by Van Dusen and St. Peter.
Van Dusen testified that St. Peter did not indicate whether the leave
claimed on ID -17 was taken in relation to the pump station failure.
z. During the Authority's existence, Van Dusen distributed Statement of
Financial Interests forms to Authority Board Members for completion.
aa. The Authority became inactive in 2004.
(5)
(7)
[signature, Jeff Van Dusen Sec.]
Re open at 8:00 pm Andy St Peter sumited [sic]
a bill for 5 days of annul [sic] leave at $49.06 per
hour based on PENVEST [sic] Act 537 wages
total 1,962.40. Andy sumited [sic] no hours for
month of May. This was discussed at May
meeting.
bb. The Township presently maintains the Authority records.
cc. Van Dusen presently has custody of the files, books and records of the
Authority, which are maintained at the Township building.
St. Peter, 04 -046
Page 16
dd. There was a period of in excess of two years from January 1, 2004, when the
Authority was abolished and Van Dusen stopped having custody of the
Authority records as Authority Secretary- Treasurer, and April 13, 2006, when
Van Dusen commenced having custody of the Authority records again as
Township Secretary- Treasurer.
ee. Van Dusen testified that the Authority records were moved several times
such that he does not know whether the Statements of Financial Interests for
Authority Board Members are included among the records retained by the
Township.
ff. ID -18 consists of a copy of the only Statement of Financial Interests for St.
Peter that Van Dusen found contained within the Authority files. (See,
Finding 65).
Van Dusen searched the records maintained by the Township for all
Statements of Financial Interests filed by Authority Board Members but found
none other than the form in evidence as ID -18.
gg.
hh. St. Peter Exhibit G, page 2 consists of a Statement of Financial Interests for
Van Dusen dated January 10, 2003. (See, Finding 73 b).
48. Keith Chapman ( "Chapman ") is a self - employed contractor working under the
business name "Chapman Contracting" (also referred to herein as "Chapman
Construction ").
a. Chapman did lateral hookup work with respect to the Sewer Project.
b. Chapman did not do any work in relation to the installation of the main line
for the Sewer Project.
c. In or about early spring of 2003, St. Peter contacted Chapman regarding an
emergency repair involving sewage backing up into a resident's house,
which problem is also referred to herein as the "pump station failure." (See,
Finding 47 r).
(1) Following some initial investigation on his own, Chapman determined
and informed St. Peter that the cause of the problem was not in the
lateral hookup that Chapman had installed, but rather, was in the
main line.
(2) St. Peter brought a rod to Chapman so Chapman could "rod the line
out" to determine where the problem had occurred in the main line.
Upon pinpointing the area where the problem existed, Chapman and
a subcontractor dug up the area to locate the precise problem.
(a) During this time, Authority Member Stanley Brubaker, Sr. was
at the jobsite for approximately 15 -20 minutes.
(3)
(4) Chapman determined that the problem was caused by a blockage in
the main line where a view pipe had been shoved through a fitting.
(a) The view pipe was located in a field, such that it was not in a
traveled area.
(b) Chapman speculated that during the clean up from the Sewer
St. Peter, 04 -046
Page 17
Chapman testified that he informed St. Peter that he (St. Peter)
should contact Greenland Construction about repairing the problem.
(a) Chapman testified that he remained at the area while St. Peter
left briefly.
(b) Chapman testified that St. Peter returned to the area
approximately 20 minutes later and told Chapman to repair the
problem.
d. The repair work for the pump station failure was done in two phases.
e. The first phase of the repair work for the pump station failure was to get the
main line back in service.
(5)
(1) During the first phase of the repair work, Chapman had only one
individual, a subcontractor, helping him with the actual repair.
(2) During the first phase of the repair work, Chapman and the
subcontractor excavated a large hole, corrected the piping problem,
backfilled the hole, and cleaned up the area as much as was possible
at that time.
St. Peter's role as to the first phase of the repair work was limited to
retrieving the aforesaid rod for Chapman's initial investigation of the
problem and obtaining supplies /materials, which he brought to the
jobsite.
(4) During the first phase of the repair work, St. Peter did not perform any
manual labor.
(3)
(5)
Project, a load of topsoil might have been dumped over the
view pipe, covering it, and that equipment might have been
driven over it, forcing it downward.
Photographs were taken of the work for the purpose of obtaining
reimbursement from Greenland Construction.
f. The second phase of the repair work relative to the pump station failure was
to install concrete reinforcement and perform further clean up work including
reseeding and mulching.
(1) For the second phase of the repair work, there were only two
individuals besides Chapman doing the work.
Chapman testified that when both the first and second phases of the repair
work as to the pump station failure had been completed, Chapman and the
subcontractor who had assisted him with the work met with St. Peter at St.
Peter's house to discuss billing for the work.
(1) Chapman, the subcontractor, and St. Peter reviewed the hours of
work, the equipment time, and cost of materials supplied.
(2) St. Peter stated to Chapman that because the work was within the
main line and the pump station(s), the work had to be billed at
prevailing wage rates pursuant to PENNVEST grant requirements.
g.
St. Peter, 04 -046
Page 18
J.
(3)
(a) The repair of the pump station failure had been a repair to an
existing structure already installed by Greenland Construction.
Chapman did not know what the prevailing wage rates were at that
time.
(4) Chapman and the subcontractor provided to St. Peter all of the
information regarding hours worked and material costs.
Chapman provided to St. Peter some of Chapman's business invoice
forms so that St. Peter could prepare the bill(s) using the prevailing
wage rates.
(5)
h. Chapman did not prepare the bills that were submitted to the Authority for
the repair of the pump station failure.
ID -14, pages 2 and 3 consist of the bills that St. Peter prepared for
Chapman's repair of the pump station failure.
Chapman did not see the bills that are at ID -14, pages 2 and 3 prior to
submission of the bills to the Authority.
k. Chapman did not see the bills that are at ID -14, pages 2 and 3 until St. Peter
handed Chapman a check in payment of the bills.
(1) St. Peter telephoned Chapman and told Chapman that a check was
waiting for Chapman.
Chapman met St. Peter on a Saturday morning outside of the
Township /Authority building, and St. Peter handed Chapman copies
of the bills at ID -14, pages 2 -3 and a check in payment of them.
When Chapman saw the amount of the check for the repair of the
pump station failure, Chapman was surprised by the amount.
(a) The check paying for the repair of the pump station failure was
in the amount of $9,208.88. (See, Finding 60 b).
(b) Chapman had expected the bill for the repair of the pump
station failure to be between $3,000 and $4,000.
I. ID -16, pages 1 -2 consist of additional copies of the two bills at ID -14, pages
2 -3, which were submitted to the Authority for Chapman Contracting's work
as to the pump station failure. (See, Finding 61).
(2)
(3)
m. The bill at ID -16, page 2 was for the first phase of the repair as to the pump
station failure. (See, Finding 61 a (1)).
(1) This bill included a charge for "admin" for 5 hours at the rate of
$49.06 per hour, totaling $245.30, which charge was not for any
service performed by Chapman. (See, Finding 61 a (1)).
(2) This bill included a charge for $187.20 for supplies purchased by St.
Peter.
(3) Chapman could not recall how or by whom the hay and seed were
purchased or when the reseeding occurred.
St. Peter, 04 -046
Page 19
n. The bill at ID -16, page 1 was for the second phase of the repair as to the
pump station failure. (See, Finding 61 b (1)).
(1) This bill included a charge for "Design & Admin." in the amount of
$1785.00, which charge was not for any service performed by
Chapman. (See, Finding 61 b (1)).
(2) Chapman testified that he thought it was strange that the Authority
had included a charge for administrative work on his bill.
(3) This bill included a charge for three laborers at $18.86 per hour.
(a) Chapman testified that he did not know to whom this portion of
the bill was referring.
(b) Chapman and the subcontractor who assisted him each
charged $25 per hour for their time.
(c) Chapman did not know the hourly rate for the subcontractor's
helper.
o. Chapman testified that after St. Peter handed the check to Chapman, St.
Peter stated that the amount of the check was not all for Chapman and then
further stated, You have to write me a check back for $4,600." (Tr. at 130).
(1) This conversation occurred in the parking lot of the
Township /Authority building with no one but St. Peter and Chapman
present.
(2) Chapman testified that he asked St. Peter to whom the check should
be written, and St. Peter said, "[J]ust write it to me and I'II see that it
gets where it's supposed to go." (Tr. at 131).
p. ID -16, page 4 consists of a copy of check number 3991 issued by Chapman
to St. Peter in the amount of $4,600. (See, Finding 62).
(1) This check was issued by Chapman in response to St. Peter's
direction that Chapman write a check to St. Peter in the amount of
$4,600 from the amount paid by the Authority for repair of the pump
station failure.
q.
(2) Chapman wrote this check to St. Peter in the Township /Authority
parking lot.
Chapman asked St. Peter to whom Chapman should give the 1099 form for
the $4,600 payment issued to St. Peter, and St. Peter told Chapman to give
the 1099 form to him (St. Peter).
(1) Chapman testified that St. Peter's willingness to take a 1099 form for
the $4,600 payment led Chapman to believe that it was permissible
for Chapman to make the payment to St. Peter.
r. ID -16, page 3 is a copy of the 1099 form that Chapman issued to St. Peter
for Chapman's payment to St. Peter of $4,600 from the Authority's payment
for repair of the pump station failure. (See, Finding 63).
St. Peter, 04 -046
Page 20
49. Timothy D. Greenland ( "Greenland ") is the Chief Executive Officer of Greenland
Construction, Incorporated (also referred to herein as "Greenland Construction ").
a. Greenland Construction is a utility pipeline contractor located in Clearfield,
Pennsylvania.
b. In 2002, Greenland Construction had a contract (the "Contract ") with the
Authority to install the Sewer Project.
(1) The Contract included installation of the sewer lines and pump station
and surface restoration and clean -up but did not include hooking up
houses to the new sewer lines.
(2) The Contract included a warranty that would cover problems caused
by damage to the system by Greenland Construction workers.
c. The Sewer Project was funded by PENNVEST.
d. The Sewer Project was "substantially competed" in September 2002.
(1) Under a Greenland Construction contract, a project is "substantially
completed" when the project is ready and able to be used for its
intended purpose, with the subsurface system complete, tested and
ready for use.
(2) A project may be "substantially completed" when the surface
restoration has not been completed.
Surface restoration typically includes, inter alia, grass restoration.
e. Greenland testified that the pump station failure developed in or about April
of 2003 after Greenland Construction had completed its work on the Sewer
Project.
f. Greenland first became aware of the pump station failure on April 1, 2003,
when St. Peter telephoned him regarding the problem.
(1) Greenland testified that his notes as to this conversation reflect that
St. Peter indicated there was a problem with the sewer lateral running
from a private residence to the sewer line in the vicinity of the pump
station.
g.
(3)
(2) Greenland testified that St. Peter indicated that excavation was
underway to identify the problem.
Greenland testified that he believes St. Peter indicated that he (St.
Peter) would have pictures taken during the excavation.
Following the April 1, 2003, telephone call from St. Peter, the next
communication that Greenland had in relation to the pump station failure was
a telephone call that he received on or about April 2, 2003, from Ron Senior
( "Senior ") of Sweetland Engineering.
(1) Greenland testified that according to his notes, Senior indicated that
he had received a telephone call from St. Peter regarding a clogged
lateral.
(3)
St. Peter, 04 -046
Page 21
(2) Greenland testified that Senior gave Greenland an initial impression
that he felt the problem was not Greenland Construction's
responsibility.
h. On April 22, 2003, Senior telephoned Greenland and provided Greenland
with more details about what was discovered on the day of the repair of the
pump station failure.
J.
Greenland does not have any firsthand knowledge regarding the repair of
the pump station failure.
On May 13, 2003, during a telephone conversation between Greenland and
St. Peter, St. Peter stated that the Authority should not have to pay certain
outstanding Greenland Construction invoices from the Sewer Project
because the Authority spent over $9,000 to repair the pump station failure.
(1) Greenland testified that he told St. Peter that Greenland Construction
had not received anything in writing regarding the problem, and that
Greenland had not seen the pictures taken during the
excavation /repair.
k. St. Peter Exhibit D is an undated letter from St. Peter to Greenland
Construction, Inc., in which St. Peter asserts that Greenland Construction
was responsible for the pump station failure. (See, Finding 71).
Greenland Construction received all monies due it from the Authority for
work performed on the Sewer Project.
m. Greenland Construction did not reimburse the Authority for the repair of the
pump station failure.
n. ID -26 consists of excerpts from the contract specification book for the Sewer
Project. (See, Finding 69).
(1) Section 00900 of the contract specification book provided, inter alia,
that the successful bidder would be required to comply with prevailing
wage rates as set forth therein. (See, Finding 69 a).
o. Under Pennsylvania law, Pennsylvania minimum prevailing wages must be
paid to tradesmen on publicly- funded projects that exceed $25,000.
p. The Pennsylvania minimum prevailing wage requirements are not applicable
to office or administrative services.
50. Ronald Alan Senior ( "Senior ") is employed by Sweetland Engineering &Associates,
Inc. (also referred to herein as "Sweetland Engineering ") as a construction service
manager.
a. Sweetland Engineering is a municipal land development firm.
b. Sweetland Engineering was the designer for the Sewer Project.
c. Sweetland Engineering served as the project representative for the engineer
for the Sewer Project.
(1) Sweetland Engineering dealt directly with the contractors on the
St. Peter, 04 -046
Page 22
d. The duties of Sweetland Engineering with respect to the Sewer Project
included ensuring that the contractors performed their work as specified.
e. ID -26 is the contract specification book for the Sewer Project, which includes
the prevailing wage rates applicable to the Sewer Project. (See, Finding 69).
(1) ID -26 was prepared by Senior and another individual from Sweetland
Engineering.
(2) The threshold amount at which the prevailing wage rate requirement
becomes applicable is $25,000.
f. ID -26 included prevailing wage rates for trades workers but did not include
any prevailing wage rate indications for office workers, administrative staff or
administrative services.
g.
Sewer Project.
(2) The Authority Board Members were not permitted to deal directly with
the contractors on the Sewer Project.
Senior testified that to his knowledge, there is no requirement that prevailing
wage rates be paid for office workers or administrative services on public
works projects in Pennsylvania.
h. The back up of sewage into a resident's home is an emergency situation that
should be dealt with as quickly as possible.
Senior testified that or about April 2 -3, 2003, St. Peter contacted Senior to
inform him of a problem involving a backup into a resident's home (which
problem is referred to herein as the "pump station failure ").
(1) St. Peter indicated that the site was already being excavated to locate
the problem.
(2) Senior testified that during this conversation, St. Peter indicated that
he had not contacted Greenland Construction.
(a) St. Peter informed Senior that he (St. Peter) classified this
situation as an emergency.
On direct examination, in response to the question of whether there
was additional discussion between Senior and St. Peter during this
conversation, Senior testified, "I believe I informed him we should do
it as prevailing wage rate." (Tr. at 178).
(a) Senior testified that when he made this comment to St. Peter
that St. Peter should charge the prevailing wage rates, he
(Senior) was referring to the wages for the contractor and his
employees.
j. There was a one -year warranty for the Sewer Project, which warranty
applied as to both Sweetland Engineering and Greenland Construction.
k. Senior testified that if during the fine grading on the Sewer Project someone
ran over a vent pipe causing a clog and the back up of sewage into a
resident's home, Greenland Construction would have been responsible for
(3)
St. Peter, 04 -046
Page 23
that problem.
Senior testified that he thought he /Sweetland Engineering saw the
photographs that were taken relative to the pump station failure but he had
no knowledge of sharing the photographs with Greenland.
51. Daniel M. Bender ( "Bender ") is employed by the State Ethics Commission as a
Supervising Investigator for the Harrisburg office.
a. The two Statements of Financial Interests for St. Peter and Van Dusen that
are in evidence as St. Peter Exhibit G are the same documents that Bender
reviewed and obtained from Beth Hurler ( "Hurler ") as the only two
Statements of Financial Interests on file with the Township /Authority for the
Authority Board Members. (See, Finding 73).
(1) Van Dusen did not locate any additional Statements of Financial
Interests on file for Authority Board Members.
b. On May 24, 2005, during the course of Bender's work on this case, St. Peter
contacted Bender by telephone.
(1) At the time of this call, to the best of Bender's knowledge, St. Peter
was not represented by legal counsel.
(2) St. Peter stated to Bender that he (St. Peter) had contacted Chapman
to do the repair work as to the pump station failure.
St. Peter stated to Bender that he (St. Peter) had provided
administrative services at the rate of $49.06 per hour as to the repair
work for the pump station failure.
(a) St. Peter stated to Bender that the rate of $49.06 per hour that
he (St. Peter) had charged for administrative services as to the
repair work for the pump station failure was derived from Act
537, the Sewage Facilities Act.
(4) St. Peter indicated to Bender that as postmaster, he (St. Peter) had
some latitude in being absent from the post office for hours, but that
blocks of time such as a half day or full day would be recorded as
leave on a biweekly timesheet.
c. For March 17, 2003, St. Peter billed the Authority for 2 hours work at $10 per
hour with the following notation on his timesheet: "Sean Lias Failure broken
line. Keith Chapman will fix." (ID -19, page 3, front and back; ID -21, page 1).
(See, Finding 66 b).
d. For April 2003, St. Peter submitted a timesheet to the Authority with the
notation "Pump Station Failure Sian Lias [illegible]" at the top in the blocks
for April 1 -3, with times recorded for the month beginning in the block for
April 4, 2003. (ID -19, page 4; ID -21, page 2).
e. Bender testified that from the face of St. Peter's April 2003 timesheet, it
cannot be determined how many hours of work on which dates were claimed
by St. Peter relative to the repair of the pump station failure. (See, Finding
66 d). (ID -19, page 4).
(3)
f. The minutes of the April 16, 2003, Authority Board meeting reflect that the
St. Peter, 04 -046
Page 24
g.
h. From the face of St. Peter's timesheet for June 2003 it cannot be determined
when the second phase of work was performed as to the pump station
failure. (ID -19, page 5; ID -21, page 3).
i. The total amount allocated for administrative costs for the Sewer Project was
$10,000, which was less than 1% of the total PENNVEST grant award of
$1,367,739.00. (See, Findings 54 (b), (e)). (ID -8, page 48).
The $4,600 payment from Chapman to St. Peter (check number 3991 dated
July 12, 2003 (ID -16, page 4)), which was derived from the Authority
payment for the repair of the pump station failure, was slightly less than half
of the total payment for the repair.
k. ID -20 consists of various bank documents pertaining to St. Peter's accounts
at Northwest Savings Bank. (See, Finding 67).
I. Bender traced the disposition of Authority check number 309 dated June 12,
2003, in the amount of $1,962.40 (ID -15, page 2), and Chapman's check
number 3991 dated July 12, 2003, in the amount of $4,600 (ID -16, page 4),
to payments made on St. Peter's Home Equity Line of Credit account at
Northwest Savings Bank.
m. ID -28 consists of the prevailing wage rates that applied to the Sewer Project.
(1) There was no prevailing wage rate set for administrative fees or
services as to the Sewer Project.
52. Stanley Brubaker, Sr. ( "Brubaker ") is a former Member of the Authority Board,
having served on the Authority Board for approximately three and one -half years.
J.
pump station failure had been corrected by that date. (ID -12, page 4).
Bender testified that he believed St. Peter informed him that the repair work
on the pump station failure took place on a Friday and Saturday and the
following Monday and Tuesday.
(1) St. Peter claimed a total of 7 hours work for the Authority at $10 per
hour for Friday, Saturday and Monday, April 4 -5, 2003, and April 7,
2003. (ID -19, page 4; ID -21, page 2).
(2) St. Peter claimed a total of 13 hours work for the Authority at $10 per
hour for Friday, Saturday, Monday and Tuesday, April 11 -12, 2003,
and April 14 -15, 2003. (ID -19, page 4; ID -21, page 2).
a. Authority Board Members received compensation at the rate of $10 per hour
for work outside of Authority Board meetings.
b. St. Peter asked Van Dusen and Brubaker to discuss paying $45 or $49 per
hour for work outside of meetings.
c. Brubaker testified that the only job for which more than $10 per hour was
paid to an Authority Board Member was for the work St. Peter did relative to
the pump station failure.
d. Brubaker testified that St. Peter was paid more than $10 per hour for his time
relative to the repair of the pump station failure due to the prevailing wage
requirement.
St. Peter, 04 -046
Page 25
g.
J.
(1) Brubaker testified that there was an indication that prevailing wages
had to be charged for the repair of the pump station failure.
(2) St. Peter told Brubaker that the prevailing wage for administrative
services was $49.06 per hour.
The prevailing wages applicable to the Sewer Project as set forth in
ID -26 did not include any rate for administrative services.
e. Brubaker testified that the following notation in the Authority Board meeting
minutes of June 12, 2003, referred to the work St. Peter did as to the repair
of the pump station failure:
Re open at 8:00 pm Andy St Peter sumited [sic] a bill
for 5 days of annul [sic] leave at $49.06 per hour based
on PENVEST [sic] Act 537 wages total 1,962.40. Andy
sumited [sic] no hours for month of May. This was
discussed at May meeting.
(3)
ID -12, page 8.
f. Brubaker testified that St. Peter's invoice at ID -17, by which St. Peter billed
the Authority for five days of annual leave at $49.06 per hour for a total of
$1,962.40, was for the work St. Peter did as to the repair of the pump station
failure.
Payment of Authority bills had to be approved at a public meeting.
h. Pursuant to the by -laws of the Authority, the compensation for work
performed by Authority Board Members outside of meetings had to be
approved by at least three Board Members. (See, Findings 57 (a) -(b)).
i. Brubaker testified that the vote to approve paying St. Peter at the rate of
$49.06 per hour for work relative to the pump station failure was by two
Authority Board Members, with St. Peter abstaining.
St. Peter's invoice at ID -17 was paid by Authority check number 309 dated
June 12, 2003, at ID -15, page 2.
(1) Authority checks require two signatures in order to be issued.
k. Brubaker testified that he thought that the money St. Peter received for work
involving the pump station failure was the $1,962.40 paid by Authority check
number 309 dated June 12, 2003.
(1) Brubaker testified that he never knew whether Chapman wrote a
check to St. Peter in the amount of $4,600.
I. Brubaker testified that St. Peter was paid out of the invoice under the name
of Chapman Contracting so that there would be one bill to present to
Greenland Construction, from which the Authority Board expected to receive
reimbursement.
53. Respondent Andrew St. Peter served as a Member and Chair of the Authority Board
from January of 2001 until December 31, 2003.
St. Peter, 04 -046
Page 26
a. DEP gave the Authority an 18 -month timeline for implementation of the
Sewer Project, with a deadline of December 2002 for completion of the
Sewer Project.
b. St. Peter testified that he did 95% of the work that was done by Authority
Board Members outside of meetings.
c. At all times relevant to this case, St. Peter has been employed by the United
States Postal Service as Postmaster of Elkland, Pennsylvania.
d. As a Postmaster, St. Peter earns leave time and is paid by the United States
Postal Service for the leave time that he uses.
e. St. Peter testified that any work that he did for the Sewer Authority that
involved leave from his employment had to be taken in eight -hour
increments.
f. St. Peter testified that one hour or two hour blocks of time recorded on his
timesheets submitted to the Authority were for work performed in the
evenings and did not involve leave from his employment.
g.
St. Peter testified that when he spoke to Greenland about the pump station
failure, Greenland would not recognize the problem.
h. St. Peter testified that he informed Senior of Sweetland Engineering that
Greenland was not being cooperative about the pump station failure and that
the situation was an emergency, whereupon Senior told St. Peter to proceed
to have it repaired and to charge the prevailing wage rate(s).
(1) St. Peter testified that Senior wanted the work broken down into the
different categories and told St. Peter to bill the different prevailing
wage rates for the different parts of the job.
(2) St. Peter testified that Sweetland Engineering told him to charge
prevailing wage rates for his own services as to repair of the pump
station failure.
St. Peter testified that as to the pump station failure, he was not acting as a
representative of the Authority but rather was serving as a representative
and employee of Sweetland Engineering to maintain the integrity of the
PENNVEST grant as to a failure of Greenland Construction to warranty its
work.
J.
St. Peter testified that he performed manual labor on the repair of the pump
station failure, which testimony conflicted with Paragraph 23 of St. Peter's
Answer to the Investigative Complaint in which he admitted that he did not
perform physical labor during the repairs. (Tr. at 312 -313). (See,
Investigative Complaint at paragraph 23; Answer of Andrew St. Peter to the
Investigative Complaint and Request of Andrew St. Peter for a Hearing at
paragraph 23; Finding 20, supra).
k. St. Peter testified that he was not only sporadically at the site of the repair of
the pump station failure, which testimony conflicted with Paragraph 23 of his
Answer to the Investigative Complaint in which he admitted that he was at
the site sporadically, and that he was onsite the majority of the first day but
sporadically the rest of the week. (Tr. at 312 -315). (See, Investigative
Complaint at paragraph 23; Answer of Andrew St. Peter to the Investigative
St. Peter, 04 -046
Page 27
Complaint and Request of Andrew St. Peter for a Hearing at paragraph 23;
Finding 20, supra).
St. Peter testified that the time recorded on his Authority time sheets relating
to the pump station failure was for his initial review of the problem prior to
the Chapman repair.
m. St. Peter testified that his time for work with Chapman as to the pump station
failure was not recorded on his time sheets submitted to the Authority but
instead was added to the Chapman bills.
n. St. Peter testified that he included his own time and expense on the
Chapman bills for the repair of the pump station failure so that there would
be a unified bill to submit to Greenland for reimbursement of the total cost of
the repair.
o. St. Peter prepared the Chapman bills for repair of the pump station failure,
which bills are at ID -16, pages 1 and 2.
(1) St. Peter told Chapman to give him Chapman's receipts, and he (St.
Peter) would prepare the bills for the repair of the pump station failure
using the prevailing wage rates.
(2) The signatures at the bottom of the Chapman bills at ID -16 pages 1
and 2 are St. Peter's signatures.
St. Peter testified that he prepared the bill at ID -16, page 2 when the first
phase of the repair of the pump station failure had been completed.
St. Peter testified that his own work encompassed within the Chapman bill at
ID -16, page 2 consisted of "part of the plumber's work, part of the laborer's
work, part of the supplies, the administrative, being in motion." (Tr. at 316).
r. With regard to the specific charges on the Chapman bill at ID -16, page 2, St.
Peter testified as follows.
P.
q.
(1) St. Peter testified that the $150 move in fee was the fee Chapman
charged for moving the trackhoe.
(2) St. Peter testified that the charge for trackhoe rental for 19 hours at
$60 per hour for a total of $1,140 was based upon the number of
hours that St. Peter determined the trackhoe was used on site.
St. Peter testified that the charge for the trackhoe operator for 19
hours at $32 per hour for a total of $608 was based upon the 19
hours that the operator ran the trackhoe.
(4) St. Peter testified that the charge for a plumber for 16 hours at $24.94
per hour for a total of $399.04 was for work performed by Chapman or
St. Peter that St. Peter considered to be of a plumbing nature.
St. Peter testified that the charge for 5 laborers for 19 hours at $18.86
per hour for a total of $1,791.70 was based upon the prevailing wage
rate for laborers.
(3)
(5)
(a) St. Peter testified that during the initial analysis of the pump
station failure, he had some workers from the Borough and
St. Peter, 04 -046
Page 28
Township snake lines through the pipes.
(6) The charge for $187.20 for supplies was for supplies that St. Peter
purchased for the repair of the pump station failure.
St. Peter testified that the administrative charge for 5 hours at $49.06
per hour for a total of $245.30 was for his time spent reviewing Act
537 and the labor codes for billing purposes.
(7)
(8) The charge in the amount of $380 for "clean up reseeding & mulch"
was for grass seed, hay and mulch that St. Peter had purchased.
s. St. Peter testified that he prepared the bill at ID -16, page 1 in advance as a
projected bill for the second phase of the repair of the pump station failure.
(1) St. Peter testified that he prepared this bill in advance so that he
would have "enough of a billing" to give to Greenland to cover both
the April 2003 and June 2003 work. (Tr. at 271).
(2) St. Peter testified that he never had a chance to go back and do a
final breakdown of actual costs for the June work.
t. Although both of the Chapman bills at ID -16 pages 1 and 2 were paid by
Authority check number 324 issued July 12, 2003 (ID -15, page 3), after all of
the repair work had been completed as to the pump station failure, St. Peter
never revised the bill at ID -16, page 1 for the June 2003 work.
u. With regard to the specific charges on the Chapman bill at ID -16, page 1 for
the second phase of the repair of the pump station failure, St. Peter testified
as follows.
(1) St. Peter testified that the design and administrative charge for a total
of $1,785.00 was billed at the rate of $49.06 per hour for between 40
and 41 hours of his time spent reviewing Act 537 and checking on the
liability of Greenland Construction.
(2) St. Peter testified that the charges for the move -in fees and concrete
were provided to him by Chapman.
St. Peter testified that the charge for a backhoe and operator for 8
hours at $65 per hour, totaling $520, was based upon his estimate as
to the projected number of hours that would be needed as well as a
reference to the prevailing wage rates.
(4) St. Peter testified that the charge for the laborers at $18.86 per hour
times 3 employees for a total of $452.64 was based upon his guess
as to the total number of work hours that would be required for the
June work as to digging, building platforms, and pouring concrete.
(3)
(5)
St. Peter testified that the charge for cleaning, seeding and mulching
for a total of $682 was an estimate.
v. St. Peter has no documentation supporting the number of hours claimed by
St. Peter within the Chapman bills at ID -16, pages 1 and 2.
w. St. Peter testified that he never considered a wage to himself of $49.06 per
hour for Authority work until after he found that wage in Act 537 with respect
St. Peter, 04 -046
Page 29
x.
y.
to work on the pump station failure.
The contract specification book for the Sewer Project did not include any
prevailing wage rate for administrative services.
Senior, who participated with one other employee of Sweetland Engineering
in preparing the contract specification book for the Sewer Project, indicated
that he was unfamiliar with any prevailing wage rate of pay for administrative
services at $49.06 per hour. (See, Finding 69).
(1) St. Peter testified that he believes Ron Senior is a liar. (Tr. at 299).
z. St. Peter testified that Authority check number 324 dated July 12, 2003,
payable to Chapman Contracting in the amount of $9,208.88 (ID -15, page 3)
was approved by the Authority Board at the June 2003 meeting.
aa. St. Peter testified that when the Chapman invoices for work as to the pump
station failure (ID -16, pages 1 and 2) were submitted to the Authority Board,
there was no discussion of their content.
bb. St. Peter did not mention anything to the Authority Board about receiving
money from the Chapman Contracting invoices for work as to the pump
station failure (ID -16, pages 1 -2).
(1) St. Peter testified that the reason he did not tell the Authority Board
about his receiving money from the Chapman Contracting invoices for
work as to the pump station failure (ID -16, pages 1 -2) was that it was
intended that the money be paid by Greenland Construction under
the warranty on its work and not by the Authority.
cc. The Chapman bills at ID -16, pages 1 and 2 were paid with money from the
Authority's bank account.
dd. St. Peter testified that he directed Chapman to pay him $4,600 from the
Authority's payment for repair of the pump station failure because he (St.
Peter) felt that was his portion of the work performed for Senior.
ee. St. Peter testified that when Chapman brought up the subject of income tax
as to the $4,600 payment to St. Peter, St. Peter told Chapman to give him
(St. Peter) a 1099 form for that amount.
(1) St. Peter testified that he reported the $4,600 payment from Chapman
for tax purposes.
ff. St. Peter did not provide to the Authority any documentation indicating that
he had taken a $4,600 cut of the Chapman payment.
St. Peter testified that he has not been able to recreate the entire $4,600 that
was paid to him by Chapman because he never had a chance to do a final
breakdown of the actual costs for the June work.
gg.
hh. St. Peter testified that he did not have an opportunity to finalize the issue
with Greenland Construction regarding responsibility to pay for the Chapman
Contracting invoices because the Authority was abolished and the Township
Supervisors took over all of the receipts and documentation from the
Authority.
St. Peter, 04 -046
Page 30
ii. St. Peter testified that Brubaker's testimony that St. Peter's invoice at ID -17
was for St. Peter's work on the pump station failure was inaccurate.
St. Peter testified that his invoice at ID -17 was for time that he spent
attending various meetings on an issue involving $300,000 that had been
provided by the Northern Tioga School District ( "School District ") to the
Authority for use as to the Sewer Project.
(1) St. Peter testified that after the School District had paid the $300,000
to the Authority for the Sewer Project, the School District wanted the
$300,000 back.
(2) St. Peter testified that he became frustrated with having to use leave
time from his employment after the Sewer Project had been
completed and felt that he should be compensated for such leave.
kk. During the years 2001, 2002, and 2003, St. Peter's rate of pay at the post
office, excluding the value of benefits, was $24.94 per hour.
II. St. Peter testified that he chose to bill the Authority at the rate of $49.06 per
hour for his leave time, which rate he stated was the Act 537 rate for
administrative work.
(1) The issue regarding the Northern Tioga School District funds was
unrelated to the actual construction of the Sewer Project and arose
after the Sewer Project had been completed.
(2) Per the contract specification book for the Sewer Project, the term
"Cost of Work" did not include administrative costs, which were
considered covered by the Contractor's fee. (See, Finding 69 b).
mm. St. Peter testified that at the May 2003 Authority Board meeting, two
Authority Board Members, specifically, Brubaker and Van Dusen, voted to
approve compensation to St. Peter at the rate of $49.06 per hour for St.
Peter's leave time.
(1) St. Peter testified that he abstained from this vote.
nn. St. Peter Exhibit E consists of copies of three documents indicating the
annual leave that St. Peter earned and used as of the 26 pay period of
2001, the 25 pay period of 2002, and the 26 pay period of 2003. (See,
Finding 72).
(1) St. Peter testified that for 2001, 2002, and 2003, his leave usage that
was unrelated to the Sewer Project was: one week of leave in 2001;
two weeks of leave in 2002; and three weeks of leave in 2003.
00. St. Peter testified that each year he was on the Authority commencing in
2001, he completed and submitted to the Authority Secretary a Statement of
Financial Interests.
pp.
(1) St. Peter testified that he did not keep copies of his Statements of
Financial Interests.
St. Peter testified that he would not have received a Statement of Financial
Interests form to complete in 2004 for calendar year 2003 because the
Authority had been abolished.
St. Peter, 04 -046
Page 31
(1) The Authority was dissolved in January 2004.
C. Exhibits
54. ID -8 consists of a Grant Agreement between the Authority and PENNVEST relative
to the Sewer Project. (See, Finding 47 h).
a. The Grant Agreement is dated April 25, 2002. (ID -8, pages 1, 6).
b. The Grant Agreement indicates that PENNVEST approved a grant to the
Authority in the amount of $1,367,739.00, relative to the Sewer Project. (ID-
8, page 7).
c. The Engineer for the Sewer Project is listed as "Sweetland Engineering &
Associates, Inc." with contact persons Robert M. Bruce, Engineer, and Brian
J. Huckabee, Project Manager. (ID -8, page 37).
d. The Contractor for the Sewer Project is listed as "Greenland Construction,
Inc.," with contact person Tim Greenland, Project Manager. (ID -8, page 37).
e. The total amount allocated for administrative costs for the Sewer Project was
$10,000 of the total grant award of $1,367,739.00. (ID -8, page 48).
55. ID -9 consists of the Authority's grant application for PENNVEST funding for the
Sewer Project. (See, Finding 47 g).
a. The grant application was dated December 27, 2001.
b. The request for funding from PENNVEST was for the full amount of the
estimated total project cost, specifically, $1,507,853. (ID -9, page 1). (See,
Finding 47 g (1) (a)).
56. ID -10 consists of the minutes of a December 18, 2000, special meeting of the
Township Board of Supervisors at which the Board authorized the creation of the
Westfield Township Municipal Authority ( "Authority "). (See, Finding 47 b).
a. When the Authority was formed, the Authority Board consisted of five
members, including Van Dusen, St. Peter, Gary Harper, Robert Ruef and
June Starke.
57. ID -11 consists of the by -laws of the Authority. (See, Finding 47 d).
a. Per the Authority by -laws, a majority of the Board for the time being in
office" (three of the five Authority Board Members) constituted a quorum for
the transaction of business. (ID -11, pages 2 -3).
b. Section 5 of the Authority by -laws provided, in part:
All action of the Board may be taken by vote of the
majority of the members present at any meeting except
that the election of officers, agents and employees of
the Authority, and the fixing of their compensation . . .
must be by a majority of the entire Board for the time
being in office ... .
ID -11, page 3.
St. Peter, 04 -046
Page 32
c. The Authority Chairman was one of the officers of the Authority. (ID -11,
page 7).
d. The duties and responsibilities of the Authority Chair were specified in
Article II, Section 2 of the by -laws as follows:
SECTION 2. Powers and Duties of Chairman.
The Chairman shall be the chief executive officer
of the Authority. He shall preside at all meetings of the
Board. He shall have general charge and supervision
of the business of the Authority. He shall sign and
execute all authorized bonds, contracts, notes,
evidences of indebtedness or other obligations in the
name of the Authority. He shall sign warrants or orders
in the name of the Authority for the payment of money
as directed by the Board. He shall from time to time
make such reports of the affairs of the Authority as the
Board may require and shall present a report of the
preceding year's business to the Board at their [sic]
December meeting in each year. He shall do and
perform such other duties as may from time to time be
assigned to him by the Board.
ID -11, page 8.
e. Article III, Section 1 of the by -laws provided that Authority checks required
the signatures of two Authority Board officers. (ID -11, page 12).
58. ID -12 consists of the official minutes of various Authority Board meetings. (See,
Finding 47 n).
a. ID -12, page 1 consists of the minutes of the February 14, 2001, Authority
Board meeting, which minutes provide in part: "[R]esolution made to pay
Authority Members $10.00 an hour for Saturdays worked on easements."
b. ID -12, page 2 consists of the minutes of the February 14, 2002, Authority
Board meeting, which minutes provide in part: "Motion made by Stan to pay
workers of Auth 10.00 per hr to due [sic] easements second by Jeff &
carried"
c. ID -12, page 3 consists of the minutes of the January 9, 2003, Authority
Board meeting, which minutes provide in part:
Hourly rate of Auth Members outside of meeting at
10.00 per hour mileage same as 2002.
Stan Brubaker made motion to accept all above
Second by Jeff Van Dusen & carried.
d. ID -12, pages 4 -5 consist of the minutes of the April 16, 2003, Authority
Board meeting, which minutes provide in part:
Andy reported on line failure at pump station & it was
repaired. Working with engineering firm & contractor
on who is going to pay for repairs.
St. Peter, 04 -046
Page 33
ID -12, page 4.
e. ID -12, pages 6 -7 consist of the minutes of the May 15, 2003, Authority Board
meeting.
(1) These minutes provide in part:
Andy talk [sic] to Tim Greenland on no. of issues:
paying for repairs at pump station .... Nothing was
settled at time.
ID -12, page 6.
(2) The minutes of the May 15, 2003, Authority Board meeting do not
reference discussions as to St. Peter's hours or compensation. ID-
12, pages 6 -7.
f. ID -12, page 8 consists of the minutes of the June 12, 2003, Authority Board
meeting, the latter portion of which minutes provides:
Meeting adjourn [sic] at 7:35 pm to go into executive
session.
[signature, Jeff Van Dusen Sec.]
Re open at 8:00 pm Andy St Peter sumited [sic] a bill
for 5 days of annul [sic] leave at $49.06 per hour based
on PENVEST [sic] Act 537 wages total 1,962.40. Andy
sumited [sic] no hours for month of May. This was
discussed at May meeting.
ID -12, page 8.
(1) The minutes of the June 12, 2003, meeting include the following
reference: "Motion to pay bills on file at office." (ID -12, page 8).
(2) There were only two Authority Board Members present at this
meeting, specifically, St. Peter and Van Dusen.
59. ID -14 consists of various bills and documents relating to bills for work performed by
Chapman Contracting for the Authority during the year 2003. (See, Finding 47 u).
a. ID -14, pages 2 -3 consist of the two bills submitted for Chapman
Contracting's work as to the pump station failure. (See, Finding 47 u (1)).
(1) The bills total $9,208.88.
(2) The bill at ID -14, page 2 is in the amount of $4,901.24.
(a) This bill was signed /authorized by Respondent St. Peter with
the date of April 9, 2003. (See, Findings 53 0 (2), 61 (a)).
(3) The bill at ID -14, page 3 is in the amount of $4,307.64.
(a) This bill was signed /authorized by Respondent St. Peter with
the date of June 9, 2003. (See, Findings 53 o (2), 61 (b)).
St. Peter, 04 -046
Page 34
(4) Both bills indicate that they were paid by the Authority at the same
time with Authority check number 324 dated July 12, 2003, at ID -15,
page 3.
60. ID -15 consists of certain bank records for the Authority's checking account at
Citizens & Northern Bank in Knoxville, Pennsylvania. (See, Finding 47 q).
a. Authority check number 309 dated June 12, 2003, was issued payable to St.
Peter in the amount of $1,962.40. (ID -15, pages 1 -2).
(1) This check was issued under the authorized signatures of Van Dusen
and St. Peter.
b. Authority check number 324 dated July 12, 2003, was issued payable to
Chapman Contracting in the amount of $9,208.88. (ID -15, pages 1, 3).
(1) This check was issued under the authorized signatures of Van Dusen
and St. Peter.
61. ID -16, pages 1 -2 consist of additional copies of the two bills at ID -14, pages 2 -3,
which were submitted to the Authority for Chapman Contracting's work as to the
pump station failure. (See, Finding 48 I).
a. The bill at ID -16, page 2 bears St. Peter's signature as the "customer
signature" with the handwritten date of April 9, 2003.
(1) This bill was for the first phase of the repair as to the pump station
failure and included a charge for "admin" for 5 hours at the rate of
$49.06 per hour. (See, Finding 48 m).
b. The bill at ID -16, page 1 bears St. Peter's signature as the "customer
signature" with the handwritten date of June 9, 2003.
(1) This bill was for the second phase of the repair as to the pump station
failure and included a charge for "Design & Admin." in the amount of
$1785.00. (See, Finding 48 n).
62. ID -16, page 4 is a copy of check number 3991 dated July 12, 2003, issued by
Chapman to St. Peter in the amount of $4,600. (See, Finding 48 p).
63. ID -16, page 3 consists of a copy of the 1099 form that Chapman issued to St. Peter
as a result of Chapman's payment to St. Peter of $4,600 from the total amount paid
by the Authority to Chapman for repair of the pump station failure. (See, Finding 48
r)
64. ID -17 is an invoice designated "Invoice 2003 -02," which was submitted by St. Peter
to the Authority for 5 days of leave, calculated at the rate of $49.06 per hour, for a
total of $1,962.40. (See, Finding 47 y).
a. This bill bears a stamped insignia of the word "Paid," with a handwritten
notation that the invoice was paid by Authority check number 309 on June
12, 2003.
65. ID -18 is a copy of a Statement of Financial Interests for St. Peter that is maintained
in the Authority files. (See, Finding 47 ff).
a. This Statement of Financial Interests is dated January 10, 2003, and is for
St. Peter, 04 -046
Page 35
calendar year 2002.
b. This Statement of Financial Interests lists the Authority as a source of
income for St. Peter.
66. ID -19 consists of invoices /timesheets submitted by Respondent St. Peter to the
Authority for mileage and work performed for the Authority outside of Authority
Board meetings. (See, Finding 47 p).
a. Most of the invoices /timesheets bear a stamped insignia of the word "Paid,"
with handwritten notations of the check number by which the invoice was
paid and the date of such payment. (See, Finding 47 p (1)).
b. The notations that St. Peter submitted in support of his invoice /timesheet for
March 2003 included the following reference to the pump station failure:
3 17 -03
Sean Lias failure broken line. Keith Chapman will fix.
ID -19, page 3 (on back).
(1) The time entry on the invoice /timesheet for March 17, 2003, is in the
amount of 2 hours.
c. The notations that St. Peter submitted in support of his invoice /timesheet for
April 2003 included the following reference to the pump station failure:
"Pump station failure Sian Lias. [illegible]" (ID -19, page 4).
d. From the face of the April 2003 timesheet it cannot be determined whether
the timesheet included hours claimed by St. Peter for work during the actual
repair of the pump station failure. (See, Finding 51 e). (ID -19, page 4).
(1) St. Peter claimed a total of 7 hours work for the Authority at $10 per
hour for Friday, Saturday and Monday, April 4 -5, 2003, and April 7,
2003. (ID -19, page 4).
(2) St. Peter claimed a total of 13 hours work for the Authority at $10 per
hour for Friday, Saturday, Monday and Tuesday, April 11 -12, 2003,
and April 14 -15, 2003. (ID -19, page 4).
St. Peter also claimed 3 hours of work for the Authority on Sunday,
April 6, 2003, and 2 hours of work for the Authority on Sunday, April
13, 2003. (ID -19, page 4).
(3)
e. From the face of the June 2003 timesheet it cannot be determined whether
the timesheet included hours claimed by St. Peter for work during the second
phase of the repair of the pump station failure. (ID -19, page 5).
67. ID -20 consists of various bank documents pertaining to St. Peter's accounts at
Northwest Savings Bank. (See, Finding 51 k).
a. ID -20, page 8 consists of a bank statement for St. Peter's Home Equity Line
of Credit account at Northwest Savings Bank, which statement covers the
period from June 5, 2003, to July 4, 2003.
(1) This bank statement establishes that a payment was made on this
account on June 13, 2003, in the amount of $2,868.03. (ID -20, page
St. Peter, 04 -046
Page 36
1).
(2) ID -20, pages 10 -11 consist of the front and back of Authority check
number 309 dated June 12, 2003, payable to St. Peter in the amount
of $1,962.40 (ID -15, page 2), which check was endorsed by St. Peter
and was deposited at Northwest Savings Bank on June 13, 2003.
b. ID -20, page 1 consists of a bank statement for St. Peter's Home Equity Line
of Credit account at Northwest Savings Bank, which statement covers the
period from July 5, 2003, to August 4, 2003.
(1) This bank statement establishes that a payment was made on this
account on July 18, 2003, in the amount of $9,600. (ID -20, page 1).
(2) ID -20, pages 4 -5 consist of the front and back of Chapman's check
number 3991 dated July 12, 2003, payable to St. Peter in the amount
of $4,600 (ID -16, page 4), which check was endorsed by St. Peter
and was deposited at Northwest Savings Bank on July 18, 2003.
c. ID -20, page 12 consists of a bank statement dated July 6, 2003, for a
checking account at Northwest Savings Bank in the name of St. Peter and
another individual, which statement covers the period from June 5, 2003, to
July 6, 2003.
(1) There were 8 deposits /credits in this account from June 9, 2003, to
July 3, 2003, which deposits ranged between $83 and $522 and
totaled $2,012.
(2) Authority check number 309 dated June 12, 2003, in the amount of
$1,962.40 (ID -15, page 2), was not deposited in this checking
account.
d. ID -20, page 6 consists of a bank statement dated August 5, 2003, for a
checking account at Northwest Savings Bank in the name of St. Peter and
another individual, which statement covers the period from July 6, 2003, to
August 5, 2003.
(1) There were 9 deposits /credits in this account from July 9, 2003, to
July 25, 2003, which deposits ranged between $120 and $400 and
totaled $2,226.36.
(2) Chapman's check number 3991 dated July 12, 2003, in the amount of
$4,600 (ID -16, page 4) was not deposited in this checking account.
68. ID -24 consists of 1099 forms for nonemployee compensation paid by the Authority
to St. Peter in 2002 and 2003.
a. In 2002, the Authority paid nonemployee compensation in the amount of
$25,030.00 to St. Peter. (ID -24, page 1).
b. In 2003, the Authority paid nonemployee compensation in the amount of
$7,860.00 to St. Peter. (ID -24, page 2).
69. ID -26 consists of excerpts from the contract specification book containing contract
documents and specifications for the Sewer Project, which bid book was prepared
by Sweetland Engineering & Associates, Inc. (See, Findings 47 i, 49 n, 50 e).
St. Peter, 04 -046
Page 37
a. Section 00900 of the contract specification book provided, inter alia, that the
successful bidder would be required to comply with prevailing wage rates as
set forth therein. (See, Finding 49 n (1)).
b. The contract specification book for the Sewer Project included the following:
B. Costs Excluded: The term Cost of the Work shall not
include any of the following items:
1. Payroll costs and other compensation of
CONTRACTOR's officers, executives,
principals (of partnerships and sole
proprietorships), general managers,
engineers, architects, estimators,
attorneys, auditors, accountants,
purchasing and contracting agents,
expediters, timekeepers, clerks, and other
personnel employed by CONTRACTOR,
whether at the Site or in
CONTRACTOR'S principal or branch
office for general administration of the
Work and not specifically included
referred to [sic] in paragraph 11.01.A.1 or
specifically covered by paragraph
11.01.A.4, all of which are to be
considered administrative costs covered
by the CONTRACTOR's fee.
ID -26, page 3.
70. ID -29 is a written communication from St. Peter to Bender dated June 2, 2005.
a. St. Peter told Bender that Ron Senior of Sweetland Engineering told him (St.
Peter) to charge prevailing wages for the repair of the pump station failure.
(ID -29, page 1).
b. St. Peter told Bender that the prevailing wage for administrative services was
$49.06 per hour. (ID -29, page 1).
71. St. Peter Exhibit D consists of an undated letter from St. Peter to Greenland
Construction, Inc., which provides in part as follows:
I also contacted you and Sweetland Engineering in April 2003
with a failure at the pump station. You have received pictures
and a breakdown of your responsibility with this failure and
have yet to contact the Authority as to when we can receive
payment for this failure. The Total repairs for the pump station
was [sic] $9208.88. I have talked to you and explained our
position in regards with these concerns and even advice [sic]
you to seek legal consul [sic] for this issues [sic]. We will not
honor your claims for any interest or any other payments until
these issues are resolved.
(See, Finding 49 k).
72. St. Peter Exhibit E consists of three documents relating to St. Peter's employment
with the United States Postal service indicating the annual leave that St. Peter
St. Peter, 04 -046
Page 38
earnec1and used as of the 26 pay period of 2001, the 25 pay period of 2002, and
the 26 pay period of 2003. (See, Finding 53 nn).
a. During the years 2001, 2002, and 2003, St. Peter's rate of pay at the post
office, excluding the value of benefits, was $24.94 per hour. (See, Finding
53 kk).
73. St. Peter Exhibit G consists of copies of two Statements of Financial Interests for St.
Peter and Van Dusen.
a. St. Peter Exhibit G, page 1 consists of a copy of a Statement of Financial
Interests for St. Peter that is dated January 10, 2003, and is for calendar
year 2002.
b. St. Peter Exhibit G, page 2 consists of a copy of a Statement of Financial
Interests for Van Dusen dated January 10, 2003. (See, Finding 47 hh).
74. St. Peter Exhibit I is a sworn statement dated December 13, 2004, that Van Dusen
provided to a State Ethics Commission investigator in this matter.
a. In this sworn statement, Van Dusen stated that the two bills submitted for
Chapman Contracting's work as to the pump station failure (ID -14, pages 2-
3) were paid in two installments rather than all at once. (St. Peter Exhibit I,
pages 13 -15, 17 -18, 21 -22, 26 -28). (Cf., Finding 47 u (2) (a)).
b. While Van Dusen was Secretary /Treasurer of the Authority, he never
received any money or check payable to the Authority from Chapman or any
check payable to the Authority from St. Peter for the design and
administration fees totaling $2,030.30 that had been included in the
Chapman bills at ID -14, pages 2 -3 and paid by the Authority for repair of the
pump station failure. (St. Peter Exhibit I, pages 15 -16).
D. Other Fact Findings
75. St. Peter did not perform any manual labor with regard to the repair of the pump
station failure. (See, Findings 19 b -d; 20; 20 a; 48 e (1) -(4), f (1); 53 j).
76. There was no applicable Pennsylvania prevailing minimum wage rate in the amount
of $49.06 per hour for St. Peter's administrative work as to the repair of the pump
station failure. (See, Findings 19 (b), (d); 20 (a); 30 a; 31 c; 48 e (3) -(4); 49 e, o, p;
50 e, e(2), f, g; 51 m (1); 52 d (3); 69 b).
77. St. Peter prepared and submitted to the Authority for payment the Chapman bills for
repair of the pump station failure (ID -16, pages 1 and 2/ID -14, pages 2 and 3).
a. St. Peter prepared the Chapman bills. (See, Findings 48 h, i; 53 a).
b. Chapman never saw the bills until St. Peter handed Chapman a check in
payment of the bills. (See, Findings 48 j, k).
c. Of the items listed on the bill for the first phase of the repair work (ID -16,
page 2/ID -14, page 2), the entries for "supplies" in the amount of $187.20
and "clean up reseeding and mulch" in the amount of $380 were for supplies
and materials purchased by St. Peter for which he was seeking
reimbursement. (See, Findings 48 m (2); 53 r (6), (8)).
78. Neither St. Peter nor Chapman reimbursed the Authority for the "design" and
St. Peter, 04 -046
Page 39
"administration fees" totaling $2,030.30 that had been included in the Chapman bills
(ID -16, pages 1 and 2/ID -14, pages 2 and 3) and had been paid by the Authority
relative to the repair of the pump station failure. (See, Findings 33a; 48 m (1), n
(1)-(2), o, o (1)-(2), p, p (1) -(2), q; 51 j; 74 b).
79. The $4,600 payment from Chapman to St. Peter paid by Chapman check number
3991 dated July 12, 2003 (ID -16, page 4) was derived from the Authority's payment
to Chapman for the repair of the pump station failure and was used by St. Peter for
personal purposes. (See, Findings 30, 30 a; 48 o, o (1) -(2), p, p (1) -(2), q, q (1) -(2),
r; 511).
a. At the hearing in this matter, Counsel for St. Peter stated that if this
Commission believes that a portion of the $4,600 payment should be
returned, St. Peter is ready, willing and able to do so. (Tr. at 39 -40).
80. St. Peter participated in the action by two Authority Board Members, himself and
Van Dusen, which resulted in payment of the Chapman bills for repair of the pump
station failure (ID -16, pages 1 and 2/ID -14, pages 2 and 3).
a. St. Peter testified that Authority check number 324 dated July 12, 2003,
payable to Chapman Contracting in the amount of $9,208.88 (ID -15, page 3)
was approved by the Authority Board at the June 2003 meeting. (See,
Finding 53 z).
b. There were only two Authority Board Members including St. Peter present at
the June 12, 2003, meeting. (See, Findings 47 y (5), 58 f (2); 81 b).
c. Authority check number 324 dated July 12, 2003, payable to Chapman
Contracting in the amount of $9,208.88 was issued in payment of the
Chapman bills for repair of the pump station failure (ID -16, pages 1 and 2 /ID-
14, pages 2 and 3) under the authorized signatures of Van Dusen and St.
Peter. (ID -15, pages 1, 3).
81. St. Peter participated in the Authority Board's approval of payment of his own
invoice designated "Invoice 2003 -02" (ID -17) at the June 12, 2003, Authority Board
meeting.
a. The invoice was approved by the Authority Board during its June 12, 2003,
meeting, along with the rest of the Authority bills on the "May /June 03" bill
list. (See, Investigative Complaint at paragraphs 42 c, 43 b; Answer of
Andrew St. Peter to the Investigative Complaint and Request of Andrew St.
Peter for a Hearing at paragraphs 42, 43 b; Findings 36 c, 37 b, supra).
b. There were only two Authority Board Members including St. Peter present at
the June 12, 2003, meeting. (See, Findings 47 y (5), 58 f (2); 80 b).
82. The $1,962.40 payment from the Authority to St. Peter by Authority check number
309 dated June 12, 2003 (ID -15, page 2) was in payment of St. Peter's bill at ID -17
for 5 days of leave from St. Peter's employment with the United States Postal
Service and was used by St. Peter for personal purposes. (See, Findings 34, 34
(a) -(b); 36; 37; 47 y, y(6); 51 1; 52 j).
83. At the hearing in this matter, Counsel for St. Peter stated that if he (St. Peter) has
committed an ethical violation, he wants to know that he did and accept
responsibility for it. (Tr. at 40).
III. DISCUSSION:
St. Peter, 04 -046
Page 40
As Chairman and a Member of the Westfield Township Municipal Authority
( "Authority ") Board from January of 2001 until December 31, 2003, Respondent Andrew St.
Peter (also referred to herein as "Respondent," "Respondent St. Peter," or "St. Peter") was
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 St. Peter as Chairman and a Member of the Authority
violated Sections 1103(a) and 1104(a) of the Ethics Act when he used the authority of his
public position to obtain a private pecuniary gain when he collected payments from the
Authority in excess of that authorized and approved by the Authority; when he completed
and submitted invoices to the Authority which contained charges in excess of the actual
amount resulting in payments being made to him from a contractor; and when he failed to
file Statements of Financial Interests for the 2000 and 2003 calendar years.
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.
Pursuant to Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act, each public official /public employee
must file a Statement of Financial Interests for the preceding calendar year, each year that
he holds the position and the year after he leaves it.
facts.
Having noted the issues and applicable law, we shall now summarize the relevant
On December 18, 2000, the Westfield Township ( "Township ") Board of Supervisors
authorized the creation of the Authority. The Authority was formed to fulfill mandates by
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) that
the Township install a sewer system in certain portions of the Township where there were
malfunctioning systems. The installation of the DEP mandated sewer system is hereinafter
also referred to as the "Sewer Project."
When the Authority was formed, the Authority Board consisted of five members,
including Respondent St. Peter and Jeffrey Van Dusen ( "Van Dusen").
The Authority Board held its first meeting on January 11, 2001. During that meeting
the Authority's by -laws were adopted. Per the Authority's by -laws, a majority of the Board
constituted a quorum for the transaction of business, and most actions of the Board
required an affirmative vote of the majority of the members present. However, certain
actions, including the fixing of compensation for officers, agents and employees of the
Authority, required an affirmative vote of a majority of the entire Board, that is, three of the
five Members of the Authority Board. (See, 53 Pa.C.S. § 5610(e)). Authority checks
required the signatures of two Authority Board officers.
St. Peter served as a Member and Chair of the Authority Board from January of
2001 until December 31, 2003. As Authority Chairman, St. Peter was an officer of the
Authority. St. Peter's duties /authority as Authority Chair are detailed in the by -laws
provision quoted at Finding 57 d.
At all times relevant to this case, Authority Board Members were authorized to
perform services for the Authority at the rate of pay of $10 per hour. In order to get paid
for work performed for the Authority, Authority Board Members were required to submit to
St. Peter, 04 -046
Page 41
Authority Secretary- Treasurer Van Dusen monthly invoices /timesheets on which were
recorded the dates the Board Member worked, the amount of time worked, the nature of
the work, and any mileage. Timesheets listed only dates and total hours worked and did
not detail start and stop times or specific duties performed.
DEP gave the Authority a deadline of December 2002 for completion of the Sewer
Project. It is clear from the record before us that St. Peter did a great deal of work to
ensure the timely completion of the Sewer Project. Although Authority Members had an
equal opportunity to perform work outside of meetings for compensation, some Authority
Members did not desire to do the work. St. Peter did most of the work that was performed
by Authority Members outside of meetings.
Van Dusen testified that at different times during the Sewer Project, St. Peter stated
that $49.06 per hour was his rate of pay in his employment position as Postmaster of
Elkland, Pennsylvania. St. Peter made comments that he should be paid more than the
$10 per hour that he was being paid for Authority work. St. Peter stated that he was taking
time off from work and that the Authority should pay him what he was losing at work. St.
Peter proposed to Authority Board Members Van Dusen and Stanley Brubaker, Sr.
( "Brubaker ") that he (St. Peter) be paid between $45 to $49 per hour for Authority work.
Van Dusen testified that he (Van Dusen) stated to Authority Board Member Brubaker that
the system can't justify paying somebody $45 to $49 an hour." (Tr. at 80). Van Dusen and
Brubaker discussed a possible rate of $25 per hour, but the Authority Board never
approved any increase in the hourly rate of compensation for St. Peter.
The Sewer Project was funded through a Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment
Authority ( "PENNVEST ") grant. The PENNVEST grant did not include the expenses for
lateral hookups.
The Engineer for the Sewer Project was Sweetland Engineering & Associates, Inc.
(hereinafter also referred to as "Sweetland Engineering "). Ronald Alan Senior ( "Senior "),
who is employed by Sweetland Engineering as a construction service manager, was one of
the authorized representatives of Sweetland Engineering who dealt with the Authority on
the Sewer Project. ID -26 consists of excerpts from the contract specification book for the
Sewer Project, which contract specification book was prepared by Senior and one other
individual from Sweetland Engineering.
The contractor for the Sewer Project was Greenland Construction, Incorporated
(also referred to herein as "Greenland Construction "). Timothy D. Greenland
( "Greenland ") is the Chief Executive Officer of Greenland Construction.
The Greenland Construction contract for the Sewer Project included installation of
sewer lines and a pump station and surface restoration and clean -up but did not include
hook ups to the new sewer lines. Hook -ups were performed by local contractors including
Keith Chapman ( "Chapman "). Chapman is a self - employed contractor working under the
business name "Chapman Contracting," also referred to herein as "Chapman
Construction."
The Sewer Project was completed by the December 2002 deadline. There was a
one -year warranty for the Sewer Project, which warranty applied as to both Sweetland
Engineering and Greenland Construction.
In or about mid -March or early April 2003, following the construction of the Sewer
Project, a problem developed resulting in sewage backing up into the bathroom of the
Sean Lias residence. This sewage backup problem is also referred to herein as the "pump
station failure." Within a short span of time, St. Peter contacted Greenland of Greenland
Construction, Senior of Sweetland Engineering, and Keith Chapman, owner of Chapman
Contracting, regarding the sewage backup problem.
St. Peter, 04 -046
Page 42
St. Peter testified that when he spoke to Greenland, Greenland would not recognize
the problem. Greenland's testimony regarding the initial conversations he had with St.
Peter and Senior indicated that he was informed that the problem was with a sewer lateral,
which would not have been the responsibility of Greenland Construction.
St. Peter testified that he informed Senior of Sweetland Engineering that Greenland
was not being cooperative about the pump station failure and that the situation was an
emergency, whereupon Senior told St. Peter to proceed to have it repaired and to charge
"prevailing wage rates."
At this juncture, it is appropriate to note the following facts in evidence regarding
prevailing wage rates. Under Pennsylvania law, Pennsylvania minimum prevailing wages
must be paid to trades workers on publicly- funded projects that exceed $25,000. The
Pennsylvania minimum prevailing wage requirements are not applicable to office or
administrative services. The contract specification book for the Sewer Project included
prevailing wage rates for trades workers but did not include any prevailing wage rate
indications for office workers, administrative staff or administrative services.
In addition to the evidence of record, this Commission takes administrative notice
that on its face, the Pennsylvania Prevailing Wage Act requires that not less than
prevailing minimum wages be paid to all "workmen" employed on "public work," 43 P.S. §
165 -5, with the terms "workman" and "public work" being defined as follows:
§ 165 -2. Definitions
(5) "Public work" means construction,
reconstruction, demolition, alteration and /or repair work other
than maintenance work, done under contract and paid for in
whole or in part out of the funds of a public body where the
estimated cost of the total project is in excess of twenty -five
thousand dollars ($25,000), but shall not include work
performed under a rehabilitation or manpower training
program.
(7) "Workman" includes laborer, mechanic, skilled
and semi - skilled laborer and apprentices employed by any
contractor or subcontractor and engaged in the performance of
services directly upon the public work project, regardless of
whether their work becomes a component part thereof, but
does not include material suppliers or their employes who do
not perform services at the job site.
43 P.S. §§ 165 -2(5), (7).
St. Peter testified that Senior wanted the repair of the pump station failure broken
down into different categories with the different prevailing wage rates charged for the
different parts of the job. St. Peter testified that Sweetland Engineering told him to charge
prevailing wage rates for St. Peter's own services as to repair of the pump station failure.
In addition to St. Peter's testimony, there is in evidence a written communication dated
June 2, 2005, from St. Peter to Daniel M. Bender ( "Bender "), a Supervising Investigator for
this Commission, in which St. Peter stated that Senior told him (St. Peter) to charge
prevailing wages for the repair of the pump station failure. (ID -29, page 1). St. Peter told
Bender that the prevailing wage for administrative services was $49.06 per hour. (ID -29,
page 1).
Senior testified that he did tell St. Peter to use prevailing wage rates for the repair of
St. Peter, 04 -046
Page 43
the pump station failure, but that when he made this comment he was referring to the
wages for the contractor and his employees.
St. Peter authorized Keith Chapman, owner of Chapman Contracting, to conduct an
initial investigation of the sewage backup problem at the Sean Lias residence. Chapman
determined that the problem was not in a lateral but rather, was caused by a blockage in
the main line where a view pipe had been shoved through a fitting. The view pipe was
located in a field. Chapman speculated that during the clean up from the Sewer Project, a
load of topsoil might have been dumped over the view pipe, covering it, and that
equipment might have been driven over it, forcing it downward.
Chapman testified that he informed St. Peter that he (St. Peter) should contact
Greenland Construction about repairing the problem. Chapman testified that he remained
at the site while St. Peter left for a brief period of time. Chapman testified that St. Peter
returned to the area approximately 20 minutes later. St. Peter authorized Chapman to
repair the pump station failure.
Chapman Contracting supplied all equipment and labor used on the repair of the
pump station failure. St. Peter was not an employee of Chapman's during the project. St.
Peter did not do any manual labor with regard to the repair of the pump station failure.
As a result of wet conditions, the repair work for the pump station failure was done
in two phases.
The first phase of the repair work occurred in April 2003. During the first phase of
the repair work, Chapman had only one individual, a subcontractor, helping him with the
actual repair. Chapman and the subcontractor excavated a large hole, corrected the
piping problem, backfilled the hole, and cleaned up the area as much as was possible at
that time.
St. Peter's role as to the first phase of the repair work was limited to retrieving a rod
for Chapman's initial investigation of the problem and obtaining supplies /materials and
bringing them to the jobsite. Although St. Peter testified that he performed manual labor
on the repair of the pump station failure, such testimony conflicted with St. Peter's prior
admission that he did not perform physical labor during the repairs. (Tr. at 312 -313).
(See, Investigative Complaint at paragraph 23; Answer of Andrew St. Peter to the
Investigative Complaint and Request of Andrew St. Peter for a Hearing at paragraph 23;
Finding 20, supra). Similarly, although St. Peter testified that he was not only sporadically
at the site of the repair of the pump station failure, that testimony conflicted with St. Peter's
prior admission that he was at the site sporadically, and that he was onsite the majority of
the first day but sporadically the rest of the week. (Tr. at 312 -315). (See, Investigative
Complaint at paragraph 23; Answer of Andrew St. Peter to the Investigative Complaint and
Request of Andrew St. Peter for a Hearing at paragraph 23; Finding 20, supra).
The second phase of the repair work occurred in June 2003. It required the
installation of concrete reinforcement as well as further clean up work including reseeding
and mulching. For the second phase of the repair work, there were only two individuals
besides Chapman doing the work.
Chapman and the subcontractor who had assisted him with the work met with St.
Peter at St. Peter's house to discuss billing for the work. Chapman testified that this
meeting occurred when both the first and second phases of the repair work as to the pump
station failure had been completed. Chapman's testimony as to the timing of this meeting
is inconsistent with St. Peter's account of the timing of the billing preparation, discussed
further below. In any event, Chapman, the subcontractor, and St. Peter reviewed the
hours of work, the equipment time, and cost of materials supplied. St. Peter stated to
Chapman that because the work was within the main line and pump station, the work had
St. Peter, 04 -046
Page 44
to be billed at prevailing wage rates pursuant to PENNVEST grant requirements.
Chapman did not know what the prevailing wage rates were at that time. Chapman
provided to St. Peter some of Chapman's business invoice forms so that St. Peter could
prepare the bills using the prevailing wage rates.
It was St. Peter, not Chapman, who prepared the bills for repair of the pump station
failure, which bills are at ID -16, pages 1 and 2/ID -14, pages 2 and 3 and are also referred
to herein as the "Chapman bills." In addition to preparing the Chapman bills, St. Peter also
signed both bills, indicating his authorization on behalf of the Authority as the "customer"
that the work had been done. Next to St. Peter's signatures on the bills are handwritten
dates: April 9, 2003, for the bill at ID -16, page 2/ID -14, page 2 and June 9, 2003, for the
bill at ID -16, page 1/ID -14, page 3.
St. Peter testified that he prepared both Chapman bills when the first phase of the
repair of the pump station failure had been completed.
The Chapman bill at ID -16, page 2/ID -14, page 2 was for the first phase of the
repair work. St. Peter testified that his own work encompassed within this bill consisted of
"part of the plumber's work, part of the laborer's work, part of the supplies, the
administrative, being in motion." (Tr. at 316). St. Peter's testimony as to the specific
charges on this bill is detailed at Finding 53 r. St. Peter testified, inter alia, that the
administrative charge for five hours at $49.06 per hour for a total of $245.30 was for his
time spent reviewing Act 537 and the labor codes for billing purposes. Although a plumber
was not used for the repair of the pump station failure, St. Peter testified that the charge for
a plumber was for work performed by Chapman or St. Peter that St. Peter considered to be
of a plumbing nature. The charges of $187.20 for "supplies" and $380 for "clean up
reseeding & mulch" were for supplies and materials that St. Peter purchased relative to the
repair. (Finding 77 c).
St. Peter testified that he prepared the bill at ID -16, page 1/ID -14, page 3 in
advance as a projected bill for the second phase of the repair of the pump station failure.
St. Peter testified that he prepared this bill in advance so that he would have "enough of a
billing" to give to Greenland to cover both the April 2003 and June 2003 work. (Tr. at 271).
St. Peter testified that he never had a chance to go back and do a final breakdown of
actual costs for the June 2003 work.
Although both of the Chapman bills were paid by Authority check number 324
issued July 12, 2003 (ID -15, page 3)- -after all of the repair work had been completed as to
the pump station failure - -St. Peter never revised the bill at ID -16, page 1/ID -14, page 3 for
the June 2003 portion of the work.
St. Peter's testimony as to the specific charges on the Chapman bill at ID -16, page
1/ID-14, page 3 for the second phase of the repair of the pump station failure is detailed at
Finding 53 u. St. Peter testified, inter alia, that the design and administrative charge for a
total of $1,785.00 was billed at the rate of $49.06 per hour for between 40 and 41 hours of
his time spent reviewing Act 537 and checking on the liability of Greenland Construction.
St. Peter testified that most of the other charges were based upon his guesses and
estimates of what would be required for the June work.
St. Peter has no documentation to support the number of hours that he claimed for
his own time within either of the Chapman bills.
Despite having signed both of the Chapman bills on behalf of the Authority as
"customer," St. Peter testified that as to the pump station failure, he was not acting as a
representative of the Authority but rather was serving as a representative and employee of
Sweetland Engineering to maintain the integrity of the PENNVEST grant as to a failure of
Greenland Construction to warranty its work.
St. Peter, 04 -046
Page 45
St. Peter testified that the time recorded on his Authority time sheets relating to the
pump station failure was for his initial review of the problem prior to the Chapman repair.
St. Peter testified that his time for work with Chapman as to the pump station failure was
not recorded on his time sheets submitted to the Authority but instead was added to the
Chapman bills. St. Peter testified that he included his own time and expense on the
Chapman bills for the repair of the pump station failure so that there would be a unified bill
to submit to Greenland for reimbursement of the total cost of the repair. From the face of
the April 2003 and June 2003 timesheets submitted by St. Peter to the Authority Board, it
cannot be determined whether the timesheets included hours claimed by St. Peter relative
to the actual repair of the pump station failure.
Chapman did not see the bills that St. Peter prepared for repair of the pump station
failure until after St. Peter had submitted the bills to the Authority. Indeed, Chapman did
not see the bills until St. Peter handed to Chapman Authority check number 324 in
payment of the bills. Chapman —who provided all of the equipment and labor for the repair
work —had expected the total bill for repair of the pump station failure to be between
$3,000 and $4,000. However, the bills, and accordingly, the Authority check paying for the
repair of the pump station failure, were in the amount of $9,208.88, which was more than
double the amount Chapman had expected. The front side of the Authority check was
signed by both Van Dusen and St. Peter.
After St. Peter had handed Authority check number 324 to Chapman, St. Peter told
Chapman that the amount of the check was not all for Chapman and that Chapman had to
write a check back for $4,600. St. Peter told Chapman that the $4,600 payment was for
the administrative portion of the project. Chapman testified that he asked St. Peter to
whom the check should be written, and St. Peter said, "[J]ust write it to me and I'II see that
it gets where it's supposed to go." (Tr. at 131). Chapman did as St. Peter directed. ID -16,
page 4 consists of a copy of check number 3991 issued by Chapman to St. Peter in the
amount of $4,600. The $4,600 payment St. Peter received was slightly less than half of
the total amount the Authority paid for the repair.
Chapman asked St. Peter to whom Chapman should give the 1099 form for the
$4,600 payment issued to St. Peter, and St. Peter told Chapman to give the 1099 form to
him (St. Peter). Chapman testified that St. Peter's willingness to take a 1099 form for the
$4,600 payment led Chapman to believe that it was permissible for Chapman to make the
payment to St. Peter. ID -16, page 3 is a copy of the 1099 form that Chapman issued to St.
Peter. St. Peter included the $4,600 payment on his federal income tax filing for 2003.
Neither St. Peter nor Chapman reimbursed the Authority for the "design" and
"administration fees" totaling $2,030.30 that had been included in the Chapman bills for
repair of the pump station failure. St. Peter did not turn over to the Authority any portion of
the $4,600 payment he received from Chapman. Rather, the full payment was applied to
St. Peter's Home Equity Line of Credit account at Northwest Savings Bank.
With regard to Authority Board action as to the payment for the repair of the pump
station failure, St. Peter testified that Authority check number 324 dated July 12, 2003,
was approved by the Authority Board at the Board's June 2003 meeting. The minutes of
the June 12, 2003, meeting do not specifically reference the Chapman bills but do
reference a motion to pay the bills on file at the office. Per the minutes of the June 12,
2003, Authority Board meeting, there were only two Authority Board Members present,
specifically, Van Dusen and St. Peter. Van Dusen and St. Peter also signed Authority
check number 324 on behalf of the Authority. Thus, St. Peter participated in the action by
two Authority Board Members, himself and Van Dusen, which resulted in payment of the
Chapman bills for repair of the pump station failure.
St. Peter testified that when the Chapman bills were submitted to the Authority
St. Peter, 04 -046
Page 46
Board, there was no discussion of their content. At the time Authority check number 324
was issued to Chapman Contracting, neither Van Dusen nor Authority Member Brubaker
was aware of Chapman's $4,600 payment to St. Peter. St. Peter did not provide to the
Authority any documentation indicating that he had taken a $4,600 cut of the Chapman
payment.
St. Peter acknowledged that he did not mention anything to the Authority Board
about receiving money from the Chapman bills for work as to the pump station failure. St.
Peter testified that the reason he did not tell the Authority Board about his receiving money
from the Chapman bills was that it was intended that the cost of the repair of the pump
station failure be paid by Greenland Construction under the warranty on its work and not
by the Authority. However, St. Peter submitted the Chapman bills to the Authority for
payment, and the Chapman bills were paid with money from the Authority's bank account.
Greenland Construction never reimbursed the Authority for the repair of the pump station
failure. St. Peter testified that he did not have an opportunity to finalize the issue with
Greenland Construction regarding responsibility to pay for the repair of the pump station
failure because the Authority was abolished and the Township Supervisors took over all of
the receipts and documentation from the Authority.
In addition to the aforesaid $4,600 payment that St. Peter received from the
Authority's payment to Chapman for repair of the pump station failure, there is another
payment that is at issue in this case. Specifically, the evidence establishes that on June
12, 2003, St. Peter submitted to the Authority an invoice designated "Invoice 2003 -02" (ID-
17) for five days of leave from St. Peter's employment with the United States Postal
Service. Invoice 2003 -02 billed the Authority for St. Peter's leave at the rate of $49.06 per
hour, for a total of $1,962.40. The invoice did not identify dates worked or duties
performed.
There is conflicting evidence as to what particular work was performed by St. Peter
for the time represented by this invoice. St. Peter testified that the invoice was for time
that he spent attending various meetings on an issue involving the use of Northern Tioga
School District ( "School District ") funds to pay for property owners' lateral hook ups to the
Sewer Project. However, St. Peter's own witness, Authority Board Member Brubaker,
testified that St. Peter's Invoice 2003 -02 was for the work St. Peter did as to the repair of
the pump station failure. Brubaker testified that St. Peter's work on the pump station
failure was the only job for which more than $10 per hour was paid to an Authority Board
Member, and that St. Peter was paid more than $10 per hour for his time relative to the
pump station failure due to the prevailing wage requirement. Brubaker testified that there
was an indication that prevailing wages had to be charged for the repair of the pump
station failure, and that St. Peter told Brubaker that the prevailing wage for administrative
services was $49.06 per hour. Van Dusen testified that St. Peter did not indicate whether
the leave claimed on Invoice 2003 -02 was taken in relation to the pump station failure.
It is also noteworthy that St. Peter provided information to Commission investigators
that he spent five days total working on the project with Chapman during April and June
2003, and Invoice 2003 -02 for five days leave was paid just three days after the date that
appears next to St. Peter's signature on the Chapman invoice for the final phase of the
repair of the pump station failure.
The Authority Board meeting minutes of June 12, 2003, include the following
reference to Invoice 2003 -02:
Re open at 8:00 pm Andy St Peter sumited [sic] a bill
for 5 days of annul [sic] leave at $49.06 per hour based
on PENVEST [sic] Act 537 wages total 1,962.40. Andy
sumited [sic] no hours for month of May. This was
discussed at May meeting.
St. Peter, 04 -046
Page 47
ID -12, page 8.
Based upon the averments and admissions of the parties in their pleadings, Invoice
2003 -02 was approved by the Authority Board during its June 12, 2003, meeting, along
with the rest of the Authority bills on the "May /June 03" bill list. (See, Investigative
Complaint at paragraphs 42 c, 43 b; Answer of Andrew St. Peter to the Investigative
Complaint and Request of Andrew St. Peter for a Hearing at paragraphs 42, 43 b; Findings
36 c, 37 b, supra). Despite the fact that St. Peter and Van Dusen were the only two
Authority Board Members present at the June 12, 2003, meeting, their action resulted in
St. Peter's invoice being paid.
Although the payment of St. Peter's Invoice 2003 -02 was approved by the Authority
Board, the Board never authorized the compensation for St. Peter's leave time that was
reflected on Invoice 2003 -02. Pursuant to the by -laws of the Authority, the compensation
for work performed by Authority officers, agents and employees had to be approved by at
least three Board Members. (See, Findings 57 (a) -(b)). St. Peter testified that at the May
2003 Authority Board meeting, two Authority Board Members, specifically, Brubaker and
Van Dusen, voted to approve compensation to St. Peter at the rate of $49.06 per hour for
St. Peter's leave time. St. Peter testified that he abstained from this vote. Minutes from
the Authority's May 15, 2003, meeting do not include any recorded discussion on wages
for St. Peter, but in any event, by St. Peter's own testimony, any such vote would have
failed because it would have fallen short of the requisite three votes. Similarly, at the June
12, 2003, meeting, when the Authority Board approved St. Peter's invoice with the rest of
the Authority bills on the "May /June 03" bill list, there were only two Authority Board
Members including St. Peter present. Thus, that vote also fell short of the requisite three
votes to fix compensation.
Invoice 2003 -02 was paid with Authority check number 309 dated June 12, 2003,
payable to St. Peter in the amount of $1,962.40. The front side of the check was signed by
both Van Dusen and St. Peter. St. Peter used this money for personal purposes,
specifically, to make a payment on St. Peter's Home Equity Line of Credit account at
Northwest Savings Bank.
We shall now review the material facts pertaining to St. Peter's Statements of
Financial Interests. St. Peter testified that each year he was on the Authority commencing
in 2001, he completed and submitted to the Authority Secretary (Van Dusen) a Statement
of Financial Interests. St. Peter testified that he would not have received a Statement of
Financial Interests form to complete in 2004 for calendar year 2003 because the Authority
had been abolished.
The Township presently maintains the Authority records. The Authority records
have been in the custody of various individuals and have been moved several times.
Current Township Secretary - Treasurer Van Dusen presently has custody of the Authority
records. Van Dusen testified that he does not know whether the Statements of Financial
Interests for Authority Board Members are included among the records retained by the
Township.
One Statement of Financial Interests form has been located in the Authority files for
St. Peter as an Authority Member. That form is for calendar year 2002. It lists the
Authority as a source of income. In 2002, the Authority paid to St. Peter nonemployee
compensation in the amount of $25,030.00. (ID -24, page 1). In 2003, the Authority paid to
St. Peter nonemployee compensation in the amount of $7,860.00. (ID -24, page 2).
On a final factual note, St. Peter has indicated through his Counsel that if he (St.
Peter) has committed an ethical violation, he wants to know that he did and accept
responsibility for it. (See, Findings 79 a, 81).
St. Peter, 04 -046
Page 48
Having summarized the above relevant facts, we note that the parties have filed
briefs /closing statements in this matter.
In its Closing Statement /Brief, the Investigative Division contends that St. Peter
repeatedly used the authority of his public office relative to the repair of the pump station
failure, playing the critical role in all of the decisions made relating to the repair; that St.
Peter fabricated the Chapman bills, inflating them to more than twice what Chapman would
have charged, using non - existent "prevailing wage rates" as to claimed administrative
services; and that the $4,600 payment St. Peter received from Chapman was a kickback,
which St. Peter overtly solicited. The Investigative Division claims that St. Peter's conduct
not only constituted a conflict of interest prohibited by the Ethics Act but also ran afoul of
the Municipality Authorities Act, 53 Pa.C.S. § 5614(e).
The Investigative Division further contends that the evidence establishes that St.
Peter's invoice designated Invoice 2003 -02 for five days of leave time constituted an
unauthorized double billing - -at a rate approximately four times the rate of compensation
allowed for Authority Member work - -for time relating to the pump station failure, which time
the Investigative Division maintains was also claimed on St. Peter's monthly
invoices /timesheets submitted to Van Dusen. The Investigative Division contends that St.
Peter's actions to obtain compensation for lost wages (leave time) from his position with
the United States Postal Service was in contravention of this Commission's prior decision
in Confidential Opinion, 04 -003, which held that absent action by the governing authority of
the municipality to approve reimbursements for lost wages as part of the salary for
authority board members, the Ethics Act would prohibit an authority board member from
obtaining such a reimbursement from the authority for attending to authority business.
The Investigative Division contends that St. Peter filed only one Statement of
Financial Interests with the Authority, specifically for calendar year 2002, and that his
failure to file a Statement of Financial Interests for calendar year 2003 was especially
important because he would have been required to disclose on such form the payment he
had received from Chapman.
The Investigative Division requests that this Commission find violations of Section
1103(a) as to St. Peter's receipt of the Chapman payment and the Authority payment of St.
Peter's Invoice 2003 -02, as well as a violation of Section 1104(a) as to St. Peter's failure to
file Statements of Financial Interests for calendar years 2000, 2001 and 2003. The
Investigative Division asks this Commission to order St. Peter to pay restitution in the
amount of $6,562.40 as to the Chapman payment and Authority payment of Invoice 2003-
02, as well as a treble penalty in the amount of $19,687.20 as to the aforesaid payments.
The Investigative Division further requests that pursuant to Section 1104(d) of the Ethics
Act, this Commission require St. Peter to pay restitution in the amount of $25,030.00 for
compensation he received from the Authority in 2002 when he had allegedly not filed
Statements of Financial Interests for calendar years 2000 and 2001. (Noting an argument
raised by Respondent during the hearing in this matter to the effect that the Investigative
Complaint had not alleged this compensation specifically, the Investigative Division asserts
that it was not required to allege such amount in its Investigative Complaint, which amount
would be useful for the penalty phase but not necessary to the establishment of the
violation.) Finally, the Investigative Division requests that this matter be referred to the
appropriate law enforcement authorities for review and any action they deem appropriate.
In the Brief of Respondent St. Peter, St. Peter submits proposed findings of fact and
conclusions of law.
As to the repair of the pump station failure, St. Peter asserts that he only charged
the Authority at the $10 per hour rate for time during his own initial investigation of the
problem, and that his other time was included in the Chapman bills. St. Peter asserts that
St. Peter, 04 -046
Page 49
he believed he was working for Sweetland Engineers, and that he included his time on the
Chapman bills so that there would be a unified bill to present to Greenland for
reimbursement. St. Peter states that it was his understanding that Greenland Construction
would reimburse the Authority for the payment to Chapman under the Greenland
Construction warranty; however, the Township Supervisors disbanded the Authority and
did not pursue payment from Greenland for the repair of the pump station failure. St. Peter
notes his own testimony that the Prevailing Wage Act provided for payment of
administrative services at the rate of $49.06 per hour. St. Peter's Brief concedes that his
conduct as to the repair of the pump station failure may constitute a conflict of interest
under the Ethics Act. However, St. Peter asserts that the purposes of the Ethics Act would
not be effectuated by the imposition of a treble penalty:
Respondent St. Peter concedes that upon reflection his
actions of working as a representative of Sweetland
Engineering to maintain the integrity of the PENNVEST grant
may constitute a conflict of interest as it is defined in 65
Pa.C.S. § 1103. Respondent has repeatedly acknowledged
that he unknowingly violated 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103 in this respect,
and is ready, willing, and able to pay the Township a portion of
the earnings he received for his work on the repair. Under the
circumstances of the case, however, it would be inequitable to
assess treble damages against Mr. St. Peter for his unknowing
violation.
Brief of Respondent St. Peter, at 48 -49. St. Peter notes his hard work for the Authority as
to the Sewer Project, in the face of opposition from fellow Board Members and under
difficult time constraints. St. Peter asserts that the evidence in its entirety demonstrates he
was unaware that his actions could constitute a conflict of interest.
With regard to Invoice 2003 -02, St. Peter asserts that the invoice was for time he
spent dealing with issues unrelated to the pump station failure, specifically, the use of
school district funds that the Authority had received. St. Peter asserts that Brubaker and
Van Dusen voted in favor of the rate increase reflected in Invoice 2003 -02, with St. Peter
abstaining from the vote.
St. Peter asserts that the Investigative Division has failed to meet its burden of proof
as to his alleged failure to file Statements of Financial Interests. St. Peter claims that he
submitted Statements of Financial Interests every year they were provided to him. St.
Peter notes that only two Statement of Financial Interests forms have been located in the
Authority files.
St. Peter requests that this Commission find that he did not violate the Ethics Act.
To the extent this Commission finds a violation of the Ethics Act, St. Peter requests that a
treble penalty not be imposed.
We shall now determine whether St. Peter violated Sections 1103(a) and 1104(a) of
the Ethics Act as alleged in the Investigative Complaint. As we apply the facts to the
allegations, due process requires that we not depart from the allegations. Pennsy v.
Department of State, 594 A.2d 845 (1991).
Violations of the Ethics Act must be established by clear and convincing proof. 65
Pa.C.S. § 1108(g). Clear and convincing proof is "so `clear, direct, weighty, and
convincing as to enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without hesitance, of
the truth of the precise facts in issue." In Re: Charles E.D.M., 550 Pa. 595, 601, 708 A.2d
88, 91 (Pa. 1998) (Citation omitted).
We shall first consider the allegation that St. Peter violated Section 1103(a) of the
St. Peter, 04 -046
Page 50
Ethics Act when he completed and submitted invoices to the Authority which contained
charges in excess of the actual amount resulting in payments being made to him from a
contractor. There is clear and convincing evidence establishing such a violation as to the
Chapman bills for repair of the pump station failure (ID -16, pages 1 and 2/ID -14, pages 2
and 3).
With regard to the element of use of authority of office, St. Peter has asserted that
as to the pump station failure, he was not acting as a representative of the Authority but
rather was serving as a representative and employee of Sweetland Engineering to
maintain the integrity of the PENNVEST grant as to a failure of Greenland Construction to
warranty its work. There is absolutely no evidence to support St. Peter's assertion of his
claimed status other than his own testimony as to his subjective belief in this regard. Yet
there is weighty, credible evidence establishing that St. Peter repeatedly used the authority
of his public office as to the repair of the pump station failure.
We find that St. Peter used the authority of his office as Authority Board Member
and Chair when he initially contacted Greenland, Senior and Chapman regarding the
sewage backup problem referred to herein as the "pump station failure "; authorized
Chapman to perform the repair of the pump station failure for the Authority; performed
whatever administrative duties he (St. Peter) may have done relative to the repair work;
and signed on behalf of the Authority and submitted to the Authority the aforesaid
Chapman bills relative to the repair work. But for serving in his public office, St. Peter
would not have been in a position to take the aforesaid actions, which resulted in the
submission to the Authority of bills totaling $9,208.88, an amount more than double the
$3000 -$4000 Chapman would otherwise have billed. St. Peter also used the authority of
his public office when he participated in the aforesaid action by two Authority Board
Members, himself and Van Dusen, which resulted in payment of the Chapman bills.
The element of a private pecuniary benefit is established by the fact that the
payment of the Chapman bills totaling $9,208.88 directly resulted in a payment by
Chapman of a portion of those funds to St. Peter. The payment to St. Peter was not
authorized by anyone —St. Peter simply demanded it.
The Authority Board certainly never authorized such a payment to St. Peter. By St.
Peter's own testimony, the Authority Board was not even informed of the payment to St.
Peter from the proceeds paid to Chapman.
Chapman did not authorize St. Peter to receive a cut of the Authority payment for
whatever administrative services St. Peter may have performed. As noted above, St. Peter
prepared the Chapman bills, and Chapman was not aware of the amount of the bills until
after St. Peter provided Chapman with a check in payment of the bills. St. Peter was not
an employee of Chapman, and Chapman merely complied with St. Peter's directive to
issue the $4,600 payment to St. Peter.
Ron Senior /Sweetland Engineering did not authorize the $4,600 payment to St.
Peter. Senior specifically testified that when he told St. Peter to charge prevailing wage
rates for the repair work he was referring to the wages for the contractor and the
contractor's employees. It is clear from the totality of the record that there was no
applicable prevailing wage rate in the amount of $49.06 per hour for St. Peter's
administrative work as to the pump station failure. Furthermore, neither Sweetland
Engineering nor Ron Senior would have been in a position to authorize such a payment to
St. Peter from Authority funds paid to Chapman.
As a practical matter, St. Peter inflated the Chapman bills to include monies St.
Peter later received from Chapman, to which monies St. Peter was not entitled. The
Investigative Division has characterized the Chapman payment to St. Peter as a
"kickback." For purposes of our disposition of this case under the Ethics Act, we need not
St. Peter, 04 -046
Page 51
determine whether the payment was a kickback with the usual connotations associated
with that term, because in any event, the bulk of the $4,600 payment was clearly
unauthorized compensation to St. Peter. We note that there is some evidence to suggest
that in his own mind, St. Peter might have believed he was entitled to this compensation.
Based upon the evidence before us, we determine that of the $4,600 payment from
Chapman to St. Peter, $4,032.80 constituted a private pecuniary benefit received by St.
Peter in violation of the Ethics Act. The remaining amount of $567.20 was a
reimbursement to St. Peter for supplies in the amount of $187.20 and grass seed, hay and
mulch at a cost of $380, which St. Peter purchased for the repair work. (See, Finding 77
c).
St. Peter has testified that he did not submit time on his Authority
timesheets /invoices (ID -19) as to the repair of the pump station failure. The Investigative
Division has asserted that St. Peter did submit such time to the Authority and received
compensation for it. We note that from the face of St. Peter's April 2003 and June 2003
timesheets, it cannot be determined whether the timesheets included hours claimed by St.
Peter relative to the actual repair of the pump station failure. In any event, to the extent St.
Peter included such hours on his timesheets, as the Investigative Division contends, then
St. Peter received through the Authority- authorized mechanism the only compensation to
which he was entitled for such claimed work. To the extent St. Peter did not include hours
on his timesheets, such was his choice.
We hold that Respondent St. Peter violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when
he completed and submitted to the Authority the Chapman Contracting bills in evidence at
ID -16, pages 1 and 2/ID -14, pages 2 and 3 for repair of the sewage backup problem
referred to herein as the "pump station failure," which bills contained charges in excess of
the actual amount owed by the Authority, resulting in a private pecuniary benefit to St.
Peter in the amount of $4,032.80 through a payment back to St. Peter by Chapman.
We shall next consider the allegation that St. Peter violated Section 1103(a) of the
Ethics Act when he collected payments from the Authority in excess of what had been
authorized and approved by the Authority. There is clear and convincing evidence
establishing such a violation as to the invoice designated Invoice 2003 -02 (ID -17), which
St. Peter submitted to the Authority on June 12, 2003, for five days of leave time from his
employment with the United States Postal Service, billed at the rate of $49.06 per hour for
a total of $1,962.40.
In considering the elements of a Section 1103(a) violation, St. Peter used the
authority of his office as Authority Board Member and Chair in performing work for the
Authority and submitting Invoice 2003 -02 relative to such work. But for serving in his
public office, St. Peter would not have been in a position to perform work for the Authority
or to submit any related bill to the Authority. St. Peter also used the authority of office by
participating in approving payment of Invoice 2003 -02 at the June 12, 2003, Authority
Board meeting and by signing Authority check number 309 as one of the authorized
signature authorities for the Authority in payment of Invoice 2003 -02.
The element of a private pecuniary benefit is established by the fact that the
resulting compensation to St. Peter in the amount of $1,962.40 was unauthorized. At all
times relevant to this case, Authority Board Members were only authorized to receive $10
per hour for work performed outside of Board meetings, and based upon the record, there
was no authorization for Authority Board Members to be compensated for leave time from
their employment positions. (Cf., Confidential Opinion, 94 -003.) Even if we would
assume, for the sake of argument, that the Authority Board had legal authority to approve
paying leave to St. Peter as part of his compensation as an officer as opposed to his
salary as a Board Member), any attempt to approve compensation to St. Peter at the rate
of $49.06 per hour for his leave time as reflected on Invoice 2003 -02 failed for lack of the
St. Peter, 04 -046
Page 52
requisite three affirmative votes. Thus, the Board authorized payment of Invoice 2003 -02
but never authorized the compensation for St. Peter's leave time that was reflected on the
invoice.
There is conflicting evidence on the question of which particular work was
associated with St. Peter's invoice for unauthorized leave time. We need not resolve the
question because —in any event —the compensation reflected on the invoice was
unauthorized, and as noted below, St. Peter shall be required to make restitution of it. If
St. Peter received Authority- authorized compensation at the rate of $10 per hour for any
such work by including the time on his monthly invoices /timesheets, then St. Peter
received through the authorized mechanism the only compensation to which he was
entitled for such work. To the extent Respondent did not properly submit the time, such
was his choice.
We hold that Respondent St. Peter violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when
he used the authority of his public office as Authority Board Member and Chair by
submitting to the Authority his invoice designated Invoice 2003 -02 for unauthorized
compensation for leave time from his employment position, by participating as an Authority
Member in approving Invoice 2003 -02, and by signing the Authority check in payment of
Invoice 2003 -02 as one of the authorized signature authorities for the Authority, thereby
collecting from the Authority a private pecuniary benefit consisting of an unauthorized
payment in the amount of $1,962.40.
Finally, we shall consider the allegation that St. Peter violated Section 1104(a) of
the Ethics Act when he failed to file Statements of Financial Interests for the 2000 and
2003 calendar years.
Based upon the unique circumstances in this case, including: (1) the testimony of
custodian of records Van Dusen that the Authority records have been in the custody of
various individuals and have been moved several times, and that he does not know
whether the Statements of Financial Interests for Authority Board Members are included
among the records retained by the Township; and (2) the dissolution of the Authority in
January 2004, such that the required filing location for Authority Members ceased to exist
prior to the May 1, 2004, filing deadline for Statements of Financial Interests for the 2003
calendar year, we find a lack of clear and convincing evidence to establish a violation of
Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act in this case. Cf., Bouch, Order 1291; Esposito, Order
1333.
We shall now determine whether restitution or a treble penalty would be appropriate
in this case.
Section 407(13)/1107(13) of the Ethics Act empowers this Commission to impose
restitution in instances where a public official /public employee has obtained a financial
gain in violation of the Ethics Act. Restitution is warranted in this case as to the private
pecuniary benefit St. Peter received from the Chapman payment ($4,032.80) and the
Authority's payment of Invoice 2003 -02 ($1,962.40). Given that the Authority no longer
exists, St. Peter is directed within 30 days of the date of mailing of this Order to make
payment of restitution to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania through this Commission in
the amount of $5,995.20. Non - compliance will result in the institution of an order
enforcement action.
Based upon our finding of no violation of Section 1104(a), we do not address
restitution under Section 1104(d) of the Ethics Act.
In considering the criteria for the imposition of a treble penalty as set forth in this
Commission's 1990 policy, and based upon the totality of the facts and circumstances in
the record, we do not impose a treble penalty in this case.
St. Peter, 04 -046
Page 53
IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
1. In his capacity as Chairman and a Member of the Westfield Township Municipal
Authority ( "Authority ") Board from January of 2001 until December 31, 2003,
Respondent Andrew St. Peter ( "St. Peter ") was a public official subject to the
provisions of the Ethics Act.
2. St. Peter violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he completed and
submitted to the Authority the Chapman Contracting bills in evidence at ID -16,
pages 1 and 2/ID -14, pages 2 and 3 for repair of the sewage backup problem
referred to herein as the "pump station failure," which bills contained charges in
excess of the actual amount owed by the Authority, resulting in a private pecuniary
benefit to St. Peter in the amount of $4,032.80 through a payment back to St. Peter
by Chapman.
3. St. Peter violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he used the authority of
his public office as Authority Board Member and Chair by submitting to the Authority
his invoice designated Invoice 2003 -02 for unauthorized compensation for leave
time from his employment position, by participating as an Authority Member in
approving Invoice 2003 -02, and by signing the Authority check in payment of
Invoice 2003 -02 as one of the authorized signature authorities for the Authority,
thereby collecting from the Authority a private pecuniary benefit consisting of an
unauthorized payment in the amount of $1,962.40.
4. St. Peter did not violate Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act as to his alleged failure to
file Statements of Financial Interests for the 2000 and 2003 calendar years based
upon a lack of clear and convincing evidence.
5. Restitution is warranted in this case as to the private pecuniary benefit St. Peter
received from the Chapman payment ($4,032.80) and the Authority's payment of
Invoice 2003 -02 ($1,962.40).
In Re: Andrew St. Peter
File Docket: 04 -046
Date Decided: 10/4/2006
Date Mailed: 10/20/2006
ORDER NO. 1418
1 Andrew St. Peter ( "St. Peter "), as Chairman and a Member of the Westfield
Township Municipal Authority ( "Authority ") Board, violated Section 1103(a) of the
Ethics Act when, in 2003, he completed and submitted to the Authority bills on a
contractor's invoice forms for repair of a sewage backup problem, which bills
contained charges in excess of the actual amount owed, resulting in a private
pecuniary benefit to St. Peter in the amount of $4,032.80 through a payment back to
St. Peter by the contractor, Keith Chapman.
2. St. Peter violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when, in 2003, he submitted to
the Authority an invoice for unauthorized compensation for leave time from his
employment position, participated in approving the invoice, and signed the Authority
check in payment of the invoice, for a private pecuniary benefit in the amount of
$1,962.40.
3. St. Peter did not violate Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act as to his alleged failure to
file Statements of Financial Interests for the 2000 and 2003 calendar years based
upon a lack of clear and convincing evidence.
4. St. Peter is directed to make payment of restitution to the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania through this Commission in the amount of $5,995.20 within 30 days
of the date of mailing of this Order.
5. Compliance by St. Peter with Paragraph 4 of this Order will result in the closing of
this case by this Commission.
a. Non - compliance will result in the institution of an order enforcement action.
BY THE COMMISSION,
Louis W. Fryman, Chair