Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1420 KravetskyIn Re: Charles Kravetsky, Respondent File Docket: X -ref: Date Decided: Date Mailed: Before: Louis W. Fryman, Chair John J. Bolger, Vice Chair Donald M. McCurdy Paul M. Henry Nicholas A. Colafella Reverend Scott Pilarz 05 -032 Order No. 1420 1/8/07 1/23/07 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 ( "Ethics Act "), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq., by the above -named Respondent. At the commencement of its investigation, the Investigative Division served upon Respondent written notice of the specific allegations. Upon completion of its investigation, the Investigative Division issued and served upon Respondent a Findings Report identified as an "Investigative Complaint." An Answer was filed and a hearing was requested. A Stipulation of Findings and a Consent Agreement waiving an evidentiary hearing were subsequently submitted by the parties to the Commission for consideration. The record is complete. The Stipulation of Findings is quoted as the Findings in this Order. The Consent Agreement has been approved. This adjudication of the State Ethics Commission is issued under the Ethics Act 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 the Ethics Act. Any person who violates such confidentiality commits a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, may be 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. Kravetsky, Case 05 -032 Page 2 I. ALLEGATION: That Charles Kravetsky, a (public official /public employee) in his capacity as the Supervisor of Bell Township, Westmoreland County, violated Sections 1103(a) and 1105(b)(5)(8) provisions of the State Ethics Act (Act 93 of 1998), 65 Pa.C.S. § §1103(a) and 1105(b)(5)(8) when he used the authority of his office for the private pecuniary gain of a member of his immediate family, and /or a business with which a member of his immediate family is associated by participating in discussions and actions of the Board of Supervisors regarding the approval of the township emergency ambulance dispatch policy, which includes Life -Stat Ambulance Service, Inc., an entity owned and operated by his son; and when he failed to disclose his position on the Lifestat Board of Directors and income from Kravetsky Enterprises on Statements of Financial Interests filed for calendar years 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005. II. FINDINGS: 1. Charles Kravetsky served as a Supervisor for Bell Township, Westmoreland County since January 2002. a. Kravetsky held no employment position with the township. b. Kravetsky served as the township's Emergency Management Coordinator (EMC) during 2002 through March 2003. c. Kravetsky was appointed Deputy to the EMC on 01/13/04. d. Kravetsky resigned his position as a township supervisor in 2006. 2. Bell Township is a Second Class Township governed by a Board of three supervisors. a. Supervisors serving between 2002 and the current time include: Charles Kravetsky; John Bowman; and Phil Calendrella. 3. Municipalities in Westmoreland County establish EMS (Emergency Medical Service) dispatch policy for their respective communities. a. The Westmoreland County 911 Center follows the policy established by each municipality when dispatching ambulance services. 4. Emergency dispatch service is provided to all municipalities located within the boundaries of Westmoreland County through the county's Department of Public Safety 911 Center. a. The 911 Center utilizes a CAD system (Computer Aided Dispatch) which is programmed to respond to the protocol established by each municipality. b. The dispatcher has no control over which ambulance service is sent on a call, the determination is made by computer. c. Quality Assurance Supervisors monitor emergency medical, police and fire dispatch. 1. Sandra Smythe is the Quality Assurance Supervisor for Westmoreland County Emergency Medical Dispatch. 5. Bell Township has traditionally been divided into three areas, with a different Kravetsky, Case 05 -032 Page 3 ambulance company designated as the primary service in the area that is closest to each company's base. a. The three main ambulance companies that provide service are: Lifestat Ambulance Service — Station 90 Avonmore Lifesavers Ambulance Service — Station 600 Oklahoma Ambulance Service — Station 106 b. The three ambulance companies provide backup service for each other. c. Stand -by service is provided by ambulance companies in the surrounding communities including: Oklahoma- Armstrong County Station - Station 168 Lower Kiski Ambulance Service - Station 116 Mutual Aid Ambulance Service - Station 301 6. Bell Township does not compensate or contract with the ambulance services. a. No township funds are expended for ambulance service. 7 Lifestat Ambulance Service, Inc. was incorporated with the Pennsylvania Department of State Corporation Bureau as a non - profit corporation on November 14, 1988. a. The purpose for the corporation is listed as, "Ambulance service on land." b. Corporate officers included: John C. Kravetsky, President; and Tammy Kravetsky, Secretary /Treasurer. c. John C. Kravetsky is Charles Kravetsky's son. 8. Charles Kravetsky serves on the Board of Directors for Lifestat Ambulance Service, Inc. (hereinafter Lifestat). a. Kravetsky has served on the Board of Directors since the inception of Lifestat in or about 1988. b. The Board generally consists of nine members: c. Board members are not compensated. 9. Lifestat operates twenty -four hours per day, seven days per week. a. Lifestat does not answer calls without A.L.S. (advanced life support). 10. Lifestat utilizes the services of a professional staffing company for its staffing needs. a. Lifestat does not employ staff directly. b. Lifestat also utilizes the services of volunteers. 11. The Lifestat roster includes both active and in- active volunteers. a. Charles Kravetsky is listed on Lifestat's roster as an EMT -P (paramedic) Kravetsky, Case 05 -032 Page 4 along with his certification #052120, and the portable unit he is assigned. 1. Kravetsky has not been active with Lifestat for at least five years. 12. Charles Kravetsky, on behalf of the Board of Supervisors, has participated in issues relating to the Bell Township ambulance protocol. a. Kravetsky has served as the liaison between the Board of Supervisors and the Westmoreland County Department of Public Safety. 13. Since taking office in January 2002, Kravetsky has attended all township meetings during which discussions were held regarding ambulance service. a. Kravetsky has prepared written motions for the board of supervisors to review for actions to be taken during board meetings regarding ambulance services. b. Kravetsky did not abstain from participating in any board actions relating to ambulance service in the township prior to 2004. c. Kravetsky did not publicly disclose his son's affiliation with Lifestat. 1. It is common knowledge in the community that John Kravetsky is the son of Charles Kravetsky. d. Kravetsky did not publicly disclose his position on the Lifestat Board of Directors. 14. In 2001, prior to Kravetsky taking office, Lifestat was designated by the Board of Supervisors to cover the territory in Bell Township that had been serviced by Avonmore Lifesavers. a. Avonmore Lifesavers closed in June 2001 requiring the township make the change to provide coverage in that area of the township. b. Upon reorganizing in November 2001, Avonmore Lifesavers requested reinstatement to the territory it had previously serviced in Bell Township. c. The board wanted all calls to Avonmore to be dual dispatched. 15. In a letter dated December 28, 2001, the Bell Township Supervisors advised the Westmoreland County 911 System that Lifestat be dual dispatched on all Avonmore Lifesavers calls in Bell Township. a. The supervisors had concerns about Avonmore Lifesavers' ability to staff 24/7 with a paramedic. b. Kravetsky was not on the Board of Supervisors at the time and played no role in the board's decision to designate Lifestat to be dual dispatched. 16. The board did not revisit the dual dispatch system until or about October 2002. 17. At the October 8, 2002, Bell Township Board of Supervisors meeting, Avonmore Lifesavers requested to have its territory in Bell Township restored. a. Supervisor Calandrella praised Avonmore Lifesavers and pointed out the benefits of a volunteer company versus a paid company. Kravetsky, Case 05 -032 Page 5 b. Supervisor John Bowman agreed with several aspects of Calandrella's statement, but advised that he would like to monitor the situation for another month before making a decision. c. Kravetsky agreed with John Bowman. d. The decision of the Board of Supervisors was to wait one month at which time 90 (Lifestat) and 106 (Avonmore) would give their reports and responses along with the rosters and then the supervisors will [sic] decide who runs what area. 18. During the discussion at the October 8, 2002, meeting regarding Avonmore, Russ Reynolds of Avonmore questioned why Kravetsky was participating in discussions concerning the Avonmore situation. a. Kravetsky responded that he was entitled to his opinion as township supervisor. b. Kravetsky further stated that if Avonmore can prove they can provide service 24/7 as their license states and have a paramedic available around the clock, he would be glad to give the territory back to Avonmore. 19. At the November 12, 2002, board meeting, the board approved a motion relating to the ambulance service in the township, as follows: "Avonmore will be given back their primary territory area. On MVA and heart attacks will be a dual response by the nearest available unit. The rest of the calls will be backup service with the nearest available unit. It was also mentioned that the policy will be held throughout the township. All areas will be nearest available backups for Avonmore and Lifestat." a. The motion was seconded by Charles Kravetsky. b. The motion passed with no abstentions. c. The dual response designation on motor vehicle accidents (MVA) and heart attacks was to be the primary service in the area and the nearest available service. 1. The supervisors' intent was to provide the best protection for township residents. 20. The motion approved by the Board of Supervisors eliminated Lifestat as the primary dispatch provider in Avonmore's territory. a. Lifestat would serve as a back -up if it had the nearest available unit. 21. The motion passed by the board on November 12, 2002, was different than a motion drafted by Kravetsky prior to the meeting. a. The motion prepared by Kravetsky would have designated Lifestat as the primary backup in all of Avonmore Life Savers areas. b. The approved motion did not designate a primary back -up. c. Kravetsky voted to approve the revised motion. Kravetsky, Case 05 -032 Page 6 22. On or about November 20, 2002, Kravetsky prepared a New Dispatch System" policy. a. The policy was handwritten and dated 11- 20 -02. b. The new policy required that all calls, whether dual dispatch or backup, be responded to by the closest available service to the call site. c. The closest available was to be determined by the 911 computer mapping system. d. The policy was drafted by Kravetsky after the Supervisors and township secretary attended a meeting with representatives of Westmoreland County 911 23. At the December 10, 2002, meeting the new dispatch policy was adopted by the board of supervisors. a. The motion made by Supervisor Calandrella and seconded by Supervisor Bowman provided as follows: 1. Level of call (E1, E2, and E3) shall be determined and designated by W -911. 2. El Calls: All calls shall be dual dispatched in all areas. A.L.S. (advanced life support) Level of service is required. a. The first ambulance dispatched is the service designated as primary in the call area. b. The second ambulance dispatched is the service that is the closest available, as determined by W -911. 3. E2 Calls: A.L.S. Level of service is required. a. The first ambulance dispatched is the service designated as primary in the call area. If the primary service is not at A.L.S. level, W -911 will immediately dispatch the closest available A.L.S. service. b. The second ambulance will be dispatched after seven minutes. This will be the closest available A.L.S. service. 4. E3 Calls: B.L.S. (basic life support) Level of service is acceptable. a. The first ambulance dispatched is the service designated as primary in the call area. If the primary service is not B.L.S. Level, W -911 will immediately dispatch the closest available B.L.S. Service. b. The second ambulance will be dispatched after ten minutes. This will be the closest available B.L.S. Service. 5. All services were required to alert W -911 if they were out of service for any reason. Kravetsky, Case 05 -032 Page 7 6. All services were to request that backup be dispatched until the primary service is available. b. Kravetsky was present at the meeting and minutes do not reflect him abstaining from the vote. 24. Supervisors Bowman and Calandrella initialed a December 16, 2002, letter to Westmoreland County 911, requesting dual response on all vehicle accidents in the township. a. Kravetsky did not initial the letter. 25. Ambulance service issues were discussed by the Bell Township Board of Supervisors at public meetings between January 2003 and September 2003. a. 01/14/03: A review of all ambulance services would be conducted around May 1, 2003 at the township building. The review by the supervisors would include a report stating the number of calls, calls acknowledged with no response, number of calls responded as ALS or BLS, was a medic needed and who? Avonmore Lifesavers representative Russ Reynolds inquired about a couple of E -1 calls that they were not dispatched as a dual response. Why? (No response). b. 03/11/03: "Modification in staffing from Oklahoma - The change in staffing is from 1 rotating staff at 11:OOpm -7am will now be 2 crews, one in each station (North Apollo and North Washington). This allows both stations to be manned 24 hours a day 7 day [sic] a week to provide the best possible care for the area." c. 04/08/03: "Russ Reynolds mentioned that Avonmore has some major changes in progress that should result in 24/7 coverage shortly. So he requested a meeting with the supervisor and Avonmore with Sandy Smythe to go over territories. The supervisors would like to meet with all 3 ambulance services to discuss the call areas this will be set up for after clean up weeik [sic]." d. 05/13/03: "A tentative meeting will be held on May 28 at 10:00 a.m. with all 3 ambulances to discuss territories as well as their responses... Russ gave an update on the progress for Avonmore Lifesavers. As of May 2003 they have 2 fulltime Paramedics, 2 full time EMT's 1 volunteer Paramedic and 12 Volunteer EMT's. He also submitted a letter on an overview in the past year to be read. This is attached." e. 06/10/03: The Supervisors discussed the responses from the ambulance services and feel they are doing fine. There hasn't been any type of complaints, so at this time they do not feel it is necessary to have a meeting possible [sic] in the fall." f. 09/09/03: "Russ Reynolds questioned the ambulance protocol as far as E -1 calls. He would also like to know the territory situation. The Township will contact 911 and inquire about the calls and possible [sic] notify higher up authorities." g. Kravetsky was present during those meetings. Kravetsky, Case 05 -032 Page 8 26. At the October 14 *, 2003, Board of Supervisors meeting, a motion was approved to make all ambulance calls dual dispatch. a. The motion was approved in part as a result of problems with ambulance response. b. Avonmore Lifesavers did not have the ability to staff 24/7 with advanced life support. c. Kravetsky discussed the idea of dual dispatch with Supervisors Bowman and Callendrella, and participated in the vote. d. The motion, seconded by Kravetsky read as follows: "A motion was made effective immediately all calls in Bell Township will be dual dispatched. Motion by Phil and seconded by Chuck." e. Kravetsky did not abstain from the vote. f. The motion approved did not give preference to any of the three ambulance services. 27. At the December 9, 2003, Board of Supervisors meetings, Avonmore Lifesavers representative Russ Reynolds expressed concerns regarding the change in the protocol and requested that the dual response motion be rescinded. a. Reynolds specifically noted that Life -Stat was being dispatched on calls to 280 or Truxall area even though they were not the closest service. b. Kravetsky was present at the meeting. c. No motion was made to rescind the dual dispatch policy. d. The board did not rescind the protocol approved on October 14 *, 2003. 28. In or about March 2004 the Bell Township Supervisors responded to written incident reports submitted by Russell Reynolds (Avonmore) that alleged a violation of the ambulance protocol. a. A public meeting was set up for March 26 at 9:30 a.m. with all three ambulance services and 911. 29. In a memo authored by Kravetsky to all EMS providers, dated March 11, 2004, the Bell Township Supervisors offered to provide them with the opportunity to present questions and concerns in written form regarding the dispatch and scene policy. a. The supervisors would review the information and pass it on to 911 for their review prior to a meeting scheduled for 3/26/04. b. The letter is unsigned, but was directed from John Bowman, Chairman of the Board of Supervisors. 30. Responses from the EMS providers received at the Bell Township office were copied and distributed to the three supervisors. a. Avonmore Lifesavers, Oklahoma Ambulance and Lifestat submitted information in response to the request. Kravetsky, Case 05 -032 Page 9 b. The responses were also sent to Sandy Smythe, EMS QA Supervisor, Westmoreland County Department of Public Safety. 31. Kravetsky served as moderator for the 3/26/04 meeting during which the dispatch and emergency response policy of the township was discussed. a. Present were the three supervisors; John Kravetsky for Lifestat, Russell Reynolds for Avonmore Lifesavers, Keith Fetterman for Oklahoma Ambulance; and Sandy Smythe and Richard Matason, representatives of the Westmoreland County 911 Center. b. Attendees were provided with an Agenda, prepared by Kravetsky, for the meeting which included the following remarks made at the beginning of the meeting: "I am Charles Kravetsky, Bell Township Supervisor, and will be the moderator of this meeting. Beside me are John Bowman and Phil Calendrella, Supervisors, and Angela Duffner, our Secretary. ... We have asked each of the three services involved to reduce their most prominent concerns to writing and submit them to us. We have reviewed such, and passed both the submitted concerns, along with our comments, to Westmoreland 911 earlier this week." Kravetsky also noted as follows in his remarks, As a statement of fact the Bell Township Supervisors have no interest in any of these issues. These are all inter - service issues that we exercise no control over. I defer at this time to Richard Matason with a 911 viewpoint. If you care, I'll review each one item by item or if you recall them you can proceed." 32. In a letter written by Kravetsky, dated March 26, 2004, to Richard Matason, Dan Stevens, and Sandy Smythe, of the Westmoreland County Department of Public Safety, signed by supervisors John Bowman, Phillip Calendrella, and Kravetsky, the procedure for ambulance dispatch in the township was outlined, as follows: "Backup in Station 90 and Station 600 dual dispatch area when Station 600 goes out [sic] service: a. Dual dispatch Station 90 and Station 106. b. If no response from either Station 90 or Station 106, contact the nearest available service. Backup in Station 90 and Station 600 dual dispatch area when Station 90 goes out of service. a. Dual dispatch Station 600 and Station 106. b. If no response from either Station 600 or Station 106, contact the nearest available service. Backup in Station 106 and Station 600 dual dispatch area when Station 600 goes out of service. a. Dual dispatch Station 106 and Station 90. b. If no response from either Station 106 or Station 90, contact the nearest available service. Backup in Station 106 and Station 600 dual dispatch area when Station 106 Kravetsky, Case 05 -032 Page 10 goes out of service. a. Dual dispatch Station 600 and Station 90. b. If no response from either Station 600 or Station 90, contact the nearest available service." a. Station 90 refers to Lifestat, Station 600 refers to Avonmore, while Station 106 refers to Okalahoma Ambulance Service. 33. The policy outlined in the 3/26/04 letter from the Bell Township Supervisors required dual dispatch on all calls the same as the policy adopted at the October 13 *, 2003, public meeting. a. The 03/26/04 policy specified which ambulance service was to be dual dispatched when one of the other services was out of service. b. This was a change from the "closest available" secondary service protocol specified in the October 13 *, 2003, policy. 34. The ambulance protocol, established by the Bell Township Supervisors' March 26, 2004, letter, remained in effect until April 2006 when a serious accident occurred on Route 819 in the north east section of the township. a. The Supervisors changed the protocol to reflect that all calls would be tri- dispatched. b. The action was intended to circumvent response delays resulting from a bridge closing in that area of the township. 35. At the April 10, 2006, Board of Supervisors meeting a vote was taken relating to a change in the ambulance dispatch policy following the bridge closing: It was mentioned the concern with the 819 bridge being closed, on the response time for emergency vehicles to respond. A letter will be sent to 9 -1 -1 with some changes until further notice. Motion by Phil, 2 nd John — no comment Chuck." a. Kravetsky stated that he was not going to vote. 36. By letter dated April 12, 2006, a letter was forwarded to Sandy Smythe signed by Angela Duffner, Bell Township Secretary advising of the change of protocol to tri- dispatch. 37. The tri- dispatch policy was again discussed during the Board of Supervisors' meeting of May 8, 2006. a. Minutes reflect that a letter was sent to 9 -1 -1 concerning the emergency vehicle response, with copies being sent to all three ambulance companies. 1. The letter noted the tri- dispatch protocol. 2. Lifestat was one of three ambulance companies affected. 38. On or about August 1, 2006, the Bell Township Board of Supervisors rescinded the tri- dispatch policy established per the April 12, 2006, letter. a. Sandy Smythe was advised as follows in a letter dated August 1, 2006, from Angela Duffner: Kravetsky, Case 05 -032 Page 11 This letter is to confirm our conversation that Bell Township Supervisors would like to revert back to the original dispatch procedure, prior the 819 closure of the bridge. If you need a copy of the dispatch protocol dated March 26, 2004 please let me know." 39. The following chart depicts the number of calls each ambulance service in Bell Township was dispatched, and responded between March 1, 2003, and August 1, 2006: Year Lifestat % Avonmore % Oklahoma % Dispatched Responded Transp. Dispatched Responded Transp Dispatched Responded Transp 2003 70 68 36 102 74 39 52 48 20 97.1% 72.5% 92.3% 2004 148 141 57 167 130 57 24 24 10 95.2% 77.8% 100% 2005 137 134 69 146 106 46 15 17 6 97.8% 72.6% 100% 2006 91 87 31 108 76 28 56 52 11 95.6% 70.3% 92.8% 40. The ambulance services saw an increase in the number of calls dispatched following the changes in policy on October 14 *, 2003, and March 26, 2004. a. The bulk of the calls were split between Lifestat and Avonmore. 1. Each service saw an increase in 2004 and 2005. b. The only service realizing a decrease was Okalahoma. 41. Lifestat Tax Returns confirm total revenue and ambulance revenue during the time period when the Bell Township Supervisors took action regarding the dual dispatch policy. Ambulance Total Service Revenue Revenues 2002 $563,665 $537,986 2003 $667,455 $649,228 2004 $514,189 $492,527 2005 $570,459 $544,558 42. Lifestat derives income from the following sources. a. Contracts with hospitals and medical facilities for transports. b. Contracts to supply ambulance service including schools for sporting events. c. Income from the response to calls and fees associated with those responses. 43. Lifestat's revenues have not increased since Kravetsky participated in Board of Kravetsky, Case 05 -032 Page 12 Supervisor actions in October 2003 and March 2004 to have ambulance calls dual dispatched. a. Lifestat did realize increased revenues in 2003. 1. The increase cannot be attributed to the October 2003 change in policy. The following findings relate to Kravetsky's failure to disclose his directorship on the Lifestat Board of Directors on Statements of Financial Interests. 44. In his capacity as a Bell Township Supervisor, Charles Kravetsky annually has filed Statements of Financial Interests. 45. Statements of Financial Interests on file for Kravetsky with Bell Township include the following information: Calendar Year 2000 Filing Date Form Revision Date Income Occupation Creditors Office, directorship or employment Financial interests All other financial interest categories None Position Candidate for supervisor Calendar Year 2001 Filing Date Form Revision Date Income Occupation Creditors Office, directorship or employment Financial interests All other financial Interest categories Position Calendar Year 2002 Filing Date Form Revision Date Income Occupation Creditors Office, directorship or employment Financial interests All other financial interest categories Position 7 -09 -01 1/00 K.M.P. Associates & Simpson Coal Co. Professional Land Surveyor National City Bank - .083% Kravetsky Enterprises -Owner Kravetsky Enterprises -100% 2 -21 -02 1/00 K.M.P. Associates & Simpson Coal Co. Professional Land Surveyor National City Bank - .083% Kravetsky Enterprises -Owner Kravetsky Enterprises -100% None Supervisor 2 -12 -03 01/03 K.M.P. Associates, Simpson Coal Co., S &T Bank, Ferris Baker Watts Professional Land Surveyor National City Bank - .083 Kravetsky Enterprises -Owner Kravetsky Enterprises -100% None Supervisor /Planning Commission Kravetsky, Case 05 -032 Page 13 Calendar Year 2003 Filing Date Form Revision Date Income Occupation Creditors Office, directorship or employment Financial interests All other financial interest categories Position Calendar Year 2004 Filing Date Form Revision Date Income Occupation Creditors Office, directorship or employment Financial interests All other financial interest categories Position Calendar Year 2005 Filing Date Form Revision Date Income Occupation Creditors Office, directorship or employment Financial Interests All other financial interest categories Position 2 -11 -04 01/04 K.M.P. Associates, Simpson Coal Co., S &T Bank Land Surveyor None Kravetsky Enterprises -Owner Kravetsky Enterprises -100% None Supervisor /Planning Commission 2 -12 -03 01/03 K.M.P. Associates, Simpson Coal Co., S &T Bank, Ferris Baker Watts Professional Land Surveyor National City Bank - .083 Kravetsky Enterprises -Owner Kravetsky Enterprises -100% None Supervisor /Planning Commission 1/14/06 01/06 S &T Bank, Saltsburg, PA; K.M.P. Associates, Inc., Box 357, Avonmore, PA; Amfire Mining Company, Box 2345, Abingdon, VA. Land Surveyor None Kravetsky Enterprises Kravetsky Enterprises — 100% None Supervisor /Planning Commission. 46. Kravetsky failed to list his position on the Lifestat Board of Directors under block #13, Office, Directorship or employment in any business, on Statements of Financial Interests he filed with Bell Township for calendar years 2001 through 2005. 47. Kravetsky failed to disclose Kravetsky Enterprises as a source of income on Statements of Financial Interests filed for calendar years 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005. [The stipulated Findings include inconsistent dates for the Township Board meeting in October 2003 at which the Township Board adopted a dual dispatch policy for all ambulance calls in the Township. The specific date is not important to our disposition of this case, and we shall consider the policy to have been adopted in October 2003.] Kravetsky, Case 05 -032 Page 14 III. DISCUSSION: In his capacity as a Supervisor in Bell Township ( "Township "), Westmoreland County, from January 2002 until his resignation from office in 2006, Respondent Charles Kravetsky (also referred to herein as "Respondent," "Respondent Kravetsky," or "Kravetsky ") was a public official subject to the provisions of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act ( "Ethics Act "), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq. The allegations are that Kravetsky as a Township Supervisor violated Sections 1103(a) and 1105(b)(5), (8) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. §§ 1103(a) and 1105(b)(5), (8), when he used the authority of his office for the private pecuniary gain of a member of his immediate family, and /or a business with which a member of his immediate family is associated by participating in discussions and actions of the Board of Supervisors regarding the approval of the Township emergency ambulance dispatch policy, which includes Life -Stat Ambulance Service, Inc. ( "Life- Stat "), an entity owned and operated by his son; and when he failed to disclose his position on the Life -Stat Board of Directors and income from Kravetsky Enterprises on Statements of Financial Interests filed for calendar years 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005. Pursuant to Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, a public official /public employee is prohibited from engaging in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest: § 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). The term "conflict of interest" is defined in the Ethics Act as follows: § 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. 65 Pa.C.S. § 1102. Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act prohibits a public official /public employee from using the authority of public office /employment or confidential information received by holding such a public position for the private pecuniary benefit of the public official /public employee himself, any member of his immediate family, or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. Kravetsky, Case 05 -032 Page 15 Section 1105(b)(5) of the Ethics Act requires the filer to disclose on the Statement of Financial Interests the name and address of any direct or indirect source of income totaling in the aggregate $1,300 or more. Section 1105(b)(8) of the Ethics Act requires the filer to disclose on the Statement of Financial Interests any office, directorship or employment in any business entity. As noted above, the parties have submitted a Consent Agreement and Stipulation of Findings. The parties' Stipulated Findings are reproduced above as the Findings of this Commission. We shall now summarize the relevant facts as contained therein. Kravetsky served as a Township Supervisor from January 2002 until he resigned from office in 2006. Kravetsky did not hold any employment position with the Township. Kravetsky served as the Township's Emergency Management Coordinator (EMC) during 2002 through March 2003. Kravetsky was appointed Deputy to the EMC on January 13, 2004. The Township is a second class township governed by a three member Board of Supervisors ( "Township Board "). The Township is located in Westmoreland County ( "County "). The County provides emergency dispatch service to all municipalities located within the County. The County 911 Center uses a computer aided dispatch system that is programmed to respond to the EMS (Emergency Medical Service) dispatch protocol /policy established by each municipality. The Township has traditionally been divided into three areas, with a different ambulance company designated as the primary service in the area closest to each company's base. The three main ambulance companies providing service in the Township are: Life -Stat Ambulance Service, Inc. ( "Life- Stat "); Avonmore Lifesavers Ambulance Service; and Oklahoma Ambulance Service. Life -Stat is a non - profit corporation. Kravetsky's son, John C. Kravetsky, is President of Life -Stat. Kravetsky has served as a member of the Life -Stat Board of Directors since approximately 1988. Members of the Life -Stat Board of Directors are not compensated. After Kravetsky took office in January 2002, he participated in his capacity as a Township Supervisor in issues relating to the Township ambulance protocol. Kravetsky served as the liaison between the Township Board and the County Department of Public Safety. He attended all Township meetings during which discussions were held regarding ambulance service. He prepared written motions for the Township Board to review for actions to be taken during its meetings regarding ambulance services. Kravetsky did not abstain from participating in any Township Board actions relating to ambulance service in the Township prior to 2004. Additionally, Kravetsky did not publicly disclose his son's affiliation with Life -Stat or his own position on the Life -Stat Board of Directors. The following specific actions occurred. At the October 8, 2002, Township Board meeting, Avonmore Lifesavers requested that its territory in the Township be restored. This request related to issues pre- dating Kravetsky's service on the Township Board, and in particular, a prior decision of the Township Board in December 2001 that Life -Stat would be dual- dispatched for all Avenmore calls because of concerns regarding Avenmore's staffing. At the October 8, 2002, meeting, Supervisor John Bowman advised that he would like to monitor the situation for another month before making a decision as to Avenmore's request. Kravetsky agreed with Bowman. Russ Reynolds of Avonmore questioned why Kravetsky was participating in discussions concerning the Avonmore situation. Kravetsky responded that Kravetsky, Case 05 -032 Page 16 he was entitled to his opinion as Township Supervisor. Kravetsky further stated that if Avonmore could prove its ability to provide service with a paramedic available around the clock, he would be glad to give the territory back to Avonmore. The Township Board decided to wait one month to make a decision. At the November 12, 2002, Township Board meeting, the Township Board voted to: (1) return to Avenmore its primary territory area; and (2) to have a dual response by the nearest available area for motor vehicle accidents and heart attacks, with other types of calls having backup service with the nearest available unit. Prior to the meeting, Kravetsky had drafted a different motion that would have designated Life -Stat as the primary backup in all Avenmore areas. However, Kravetsky seconded and voted in favor of the revised motion. The effect of the approved motion was to eliminate Life -Stat as the primary dispatch provider in Avonmore's territory, with Life -Stat serving as a back -up if it had the nearest available unit. On or about November 20, 2002, Kravetsky drafted a New Dispatch System" policy requiring that all calls, whether dual dispatch or backup, be responded to by the closest available service to the call site. The new dispatch policy was adopted at the Township Board's December 10, 2002, meeting. See, Finding 23. Kravetsky was present at the meeting, and the meeting minutes do not reflect Kravetsky abstaining from the vote. Ambulance service issues continued to be discussed at public meetings of the Township Board between January 2003 and September 2003. See, Finding 25. At the October 2003 Township Board meeting, a motion was approved to make all ambulance calls dual dispatch. The motion was approved in part as a result of problems with ambulance response. Kravetsky discussed the idea of dual dispatch with the other supervisors, seconded the aforesaid motion, and participated in the vote. The approved motion did not give preference to any of the three ambulance services. At the December 9, 2003, Township Board meeting, Avonmore Lifesavers representative Russ Reynolds expressed concerns regarding the change in the protocol and requested that the dual response motion be rescinded. Reynolds specifically noted that Life -Stat was being dispatched on calls when it was not the closest service. Kravetsky was present at the meeting. The Township Board did not rescind the dual dispatch protocol. In or about March 2004 the Township Supervisors responded to written incident reports submitted by Russell Reynolds that alleged a violation of the ambulance protocol. A public meeting was scheduled for March 26, 2004, which meeting was to include participation by all three ambulance services and the County 911. Kravetsky authored a memorandum dated March 11, 2004, by which the Township Board provided an opportunity to all EMS providers to present questions and concerns in written form prior to the meeting. Kravetsky prepared the agenda and served as moderator for the March 26, 2004, meeting. In a letter dated March 26, 2004, which was written by Kravetsky and signed by all three Township Supervisors, the Township Board established a new procedure for ambulance dispatch in the Township. See, Finding 32. Like the policy that had been adopted at the Township Board's October 2003 public meeting, the March 26, 2004, policy required dual dispatch on all calls. However, the March 26, 2004, policy specified which ambulance service was to be dual dispatched when one of the other services was out of service. This was a change from the "closest available" secondary service protocol of the October 2003 policy. The ambulance protocol established by the Township Supervisors' March 26, 2004, letter, remained in effect until April 2006 when the Supervisors changed the protocol to reflect that all calls would be tri- dispatched. This particular action was generated as the Kravetsky, Case 05 -032 Page 17 result of a bridge closing. Kravetsky did not participate in the Township Board's vote at its April 10, 2006, meeting relative to this policy change. On or about August 1, 2006, the Township Board rescinded the tri- dispatch policy. The parties have stipulated that the ambulance services saw an increase in the number of calls dispatched following the changes in the Township's policy in October 2003 and on March 26, 2004, with the bulk of the calls being split between Life -Stat and Avonmore. See, Findings 39 -40. Life - Stat's revenues have not increased since Kravetsky participated in Township Board actions in October 2003 and March 2004 to have ambulance calls dual dispatched. Finding 43. Life -Stat did realize increased revenues in 2003, but the increase cannot be attributed to the October 2003 change in the Township's policy. Id. With regard to Kravetsky's Statements of Financial Interests filed with the Township, the parties have stipulated that: (1) Kravetsky failed to disclose Kravetsky Enterprises as a source of income on his Statements of Financial Interests filed for calendar years 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005; and (2) Kravetsky failed to list his position on the Life - Stat Board of Directors under block #13 (relating to the requirement to disclose any office, directorship or employment in any business entity, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1105(b)(8)) on his Statements of Financial Interests filed with the Township for calendar years 2001 through 2005. Having highlighted the Stipulated Findings and issues before us, we shall now apply the Ethics Act to determine the proper disposition of this case. The parties' Consent Agreement sets forth a proposed resolution of the allegation as follows: 3. The Investigative Division will recommend the following in relation to the above allegations: a. That no violation of Section 1103(a) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Law, 65 Pa.C.S. §1103(a) occurred in relation to Kravetsky's actions by the Board of Supervisors regarding the approval of the township emergency ambulance dispatch policy which included Life -Stat Ambulance Service, Inc., a business with which Kravetsky's son is associated; and b. That technical violations of Section 1105(b)(8) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Law, 65 Pa.C.S. §1105(b)(8) occurred regarding Kravetsky's failure to report his position on the Life -Stat Board of Directors for calendar years 2000 -2005 inclusive; and c. That technical violations of Section 1105(b)(5) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Law, 65 Pa.C.S. §1105(b)(5) occurred when Kravetsky failed to report Kravetsky Enterprises on his Statement of Financial Interests as a source of income for calendar years 2000 -2005 inclusive. 4. Kravetsky agrees to file amended Statement [sic] of Financial Interests for calendar years 2000 -2005 inclusive correcting the deficiencies in no. 3(b) and 3(c) above. 5. The Investigative Division will recommend that the State Ethics Kravetsky, Case 05 -032 Page 18 Commission take no further action in this matter; and make no specific recommendations to any law enforcement or other authority to take action in this matter. Such, however, does not prohibit the Commission from initiating appropriate enforcement actions in the event of Respondent's failure to comply with this agreement or the Commission's order or cooperating with any other authority who may so choose to review this matter further. 6. Kravetsky agrees to waive his rights to an evidentiary hearing and appellate rights without prejudice to so proceed in the event that the State Ethics Commission does not accept this agreement. Consent Agreement, at 2. In considering the recommendations of the Consent Agreement, we note that the requisite elements for a violation of Section 1103(a) include the use of the authority of the public position or confidential information accessed by being in the public position for the private pecuniary benefit of the public official /public employee himself, a member of his immediate family, or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. There were multiple occasions when Respondent used the authority of his public office in matters pertaining to the Township ambulance protocol. However, under the stipulated Findings, the requisite element of a prohibited private pecuniary benefit has not been established. See, e.g., Finding 43. Accordingly, we hold that no violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act occurred in relation to Kravetsky's actions regarding the approval of the Township emergency ambulance dispatch policy, which included Life -Stat Ambulance Service, Inc., a non - profit corporation with which Kravetsky's son is associated, based upon a lack of evidence establishing a prohibited private pecuniary benefit. We shall now consider the allegations regarding Kravetsky's Statements of Financial Interests. The parties have stipulated that Kravetsky failed to disclose Kravetsky Enterprises as a source of income on his Statements of Financial Interests filed for calendar years 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005. Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, we hold that technical violations of Section 1105(b)(5) of the Ethics Act occurred when Kravetsky failed to report Kravetsky Enterprises on his Statements of Financial Interests as a source of income for calendar years 2000 -2005 inclusive. The parties have stipulated that Kravetsky failed to list his position on the Life -Stat Board of Directors under block #13 of his Statements of Financial Interests filed with the Township for calendar years 2001 through 2005. Findings 46 -47. Per Finding 45, Kravetsky also did not list his position on the Life -Stat Board of Directors under block 13 of his Statement of Financial Interests filed with the Township for calendar year 2000. With regard to Kravetsky's omission from his Statements of Financial Interests of his position as a Director of Life -Stat, a non - profit corporation, we note that we are aware of the recent ruling of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in In re Nomination Petition of Carroll, 586 Pa. 624, 896 A.2d 566 (2006). In Carroll, in the narrow context of a challenge to a candidate's nomination petition, the Supreme Court held that a candidate's omission from his Statement of Financial Interests of his presidency of a non - profit corporation from which he received no compensation was not a fatal defect to his nomination petition. In reaching this conclusion, the Court reviewed the definition of the term "business" as set forth in the Ethics Act: § 1102. Definitions Kravetsky, Case 05 -032 Page 19 "Business." Any corporation, partnership, sole proprietorship, firm, enterprise, franchise, association, organization, self - employed individual, holding company, joint stock company, receivership, trust or any legal entity organized for profit. 65 Pa.C.S. § 1102. The Court noted that the "organized for profit" reference in the definition was subject to two possible interpretations —an interpretation that would construe the reference as modifying all preceding forms of business listed in the definition (such that only for - profit entities would qualify as "businesses ") and another interpretation that would construe it as applying only to the last antecedent example (such that non - profit entities would qualify as "businesses "). Having apparently been erroneously informed that this Commission had no rulings as to whether non - profit entities would be considered "businesses" under the Ethics Act, the Court construed the definition in the way most favorable to the candidate, such that the candidate was viewed as not having been required to list his presidency of the non - profit corporation on his Statement of Financial Interests. Contrary to the inaccurate information that was apparently supplied to the Supreme Court in the Carroll case, this Commission has long held that a non - profit corporation is a "business" as that term is defined in the Ethics Act. In Soltis - Sparano, Order 1045 (decided in 1997) we specifically interpreted the language at the end of the definition of the term "business" and concluded that: The word "or" is disjunctive, and furthermore, the repeated use of the word "any" precludes any interpretation that the final phrase "legal entity organized for profit" modifies the initial word "corporation:" Any corporation, ... or any legal entity organized for profit." The clear and unambiguous language is that any corporation, including a non - profit corporation, is a "business." Soltis - Sparano, Order No. 1045, at 31. The following are additional decisions in which this Commission has held that a non - profit corporation is a "business" within the meaning of that term as defined by the Ethics Act: Confidential Opinion, No. 89 -007 (decided in 1989); McConahy, Opinion No. 96 -006 (decided in 1996); Maduka, Order 1277 (decided in 2003). All of these rulings are public documents that are available on the Commission's web site in a searchable electronic library and are also available in libraries throughout the Commonwealth. We recognize that challenges to candidate nomination petitions involve unique considerations, and at this time, there is no indication that the Supreme Court's ruling in the Carroll case would have any applicability outside the scope of election - related challenges. In the instant matter, which is not an election - related case, the parties have entered into a comprehensive Consent Agreement with the benefit of legal counsel to assist them in weighing all relevant factual and legal considerations, and the parties are in agreement that findings of technical violations of Section 1105(b)(8) of the Ethics Act would be appropriate as part of an overall settlement of this case. We shall accept the disposition to which the parties have agreed. Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, we hold that technical violations of Section 1105(b)(8) of the Ethics Act occurred regarding Kravetsky's failure to report his position on the Life -Stat Board of Directors on his Statements of Financial Interests for calendar years 2000 -2005 inclusive. Kravetsky, Case 05 -032 Page 20 As part of the Consent Agreement, Kravetsky has agreed to file amended Statements of Financial Interests for calendar years 2000 through 2005 inclusive correcting the deficiencies to which the parties have agreed as noted in paragraphs 3(b) and 3(c) of the Consent Agreement quoted above. We determine that the Consent Agreement submitted by the parties sets forth the proper disposition for this case, based upon our review as reflected in the above analysis and the totality of the facts and circumstances. Kravetsky is directed to file amended Statements of Financial Interests with the Township for calendar years 2000 through 2005 inclusive, in satisfaction of the terms and conditions of the Consent Agreement. Compliance with the foregoing will result in the closing of this case with no further action by this Commission. Noncompliance will result in the institution of an order enforcement action. IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: 1. Respondent Charles Kravetsky ( "Kravetsky "), as a Supervisor in Bell Township ( "Township "), Westmoreland County, from January 2002 until his resignation from office in 2006, was a public official subject to the provisions of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act ( "Ethics Act "), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq. 2. Kravetsky did not violate Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act in relation to his actions regarding the approval of the Township emergency ambulance dispatch policy, which included Life -Stat Ambulance Service, Inc. ( "Life- Stat "), a non - profit corporation with which Kravetsky's son is associated, based upon a lack of evidence establishing a prohibited private pecuniary benefit. 3. Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, technical violations of Section 1105(b)(8) of the Ethics Act occurred regarding Kravetsky's failure to report his position on the Life -Stat Board of Directors on his Statements of Financial Interests for calendar years 2000 -2005 inclusive. 4. Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, technical violations of Section 1105(b)(5) of the Ethics Act occurred when Kravetsky failed to report Kravetsky Enterprises on his Statements of Financial Interests as a source of income for calendar years 2000 -2005 inclusive. In Re: Charles Kravetsky ORDER NO. 1420 File Docket: 05 -032 Date Decided: 1/8/07 Date Mailed: 1/23/07 1 Respondent Charles Kravetsky ( "Kravetsky "), a public official in his capacity as a Supervisor in Bell Township ( "Township "), Westmoreland County, from January 2002 until his resignation from office in 2006, did not violate Section 1103(a) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act ( "Ethics Act "), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), in relation to his actions regarding the approval of the Township emergency ambulance dispatch policy, which included Life -Stat Ambulance Service, Inc. ("Life - Stat"), a non - profit corporation with which Kravetsky's son is associated, based upon a lack of evidence establishing a prohibited private pecuniary benefit. 2. Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, technical violations of Section 1105(b)(8) of the Ethics Act occurred regarding Kravetsky's failure to report his position on the Life -Stat Board of Directors on his Statements of Financial Interests for calendar years 2000 -2005 inclusive. 3. Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, technical violations of Section 1105(b)(5) of the Ethics Act occurred when Kravetsky failed to report Kravetsky Enterprises on his Statements of Financial Interests as a source of income for calendar years 2000 -2005 inclusive. 4. Kravetsky is directed to file amended Statements of Financial Interests with the Township for calendar years 2000 through 2005 inclusive, in satisfaction of the terms and conditions of the Consent Agreement. a. Compliance with the foregoing will result in the closing of this case with no further action by this Commission. b. Non - compliance will result in the institution of an order enforcement action. BY THE COMMISSION, Louis W. Fryman, Chair