Loading...
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 Effective December 15, 1998, Act 9 of 1989 was repealed and replaced by Chapter 11 of Act 93 of 1998, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq., which essentially repeats Act 9 of 1989 and provides for the completion of pending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