HomeMy WebLinkAbout1801 EstabrookPHONE: 717-783-1610
TOLL FREE: 1-800-932-0936
In Re: Michelle Estabrook,
Respondent
File Docket:
X-ref.
Date Decided:
Date Mailed:
FACSIMILE: 717-787-0806
WEBSITE: wwwethics.pa,go
21-009
Order No. 1801
4/21/22
4/22/22
Before: Nicholas A. Colafella, Chair
Mark R. Corrigan, Vice Chair
Roger Nick
Melanie DePalma
Michael A. Schwartz
Shelley Y. Sinims,
This is a final adjudication of the State Ethics Commission.
Procedurally, the Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission conducted an
investigation regarding possible violation(s) 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." A
Stipulation of Findings and a Consent Agreement were subsequently submitted by the parties to
the Commission for consideration. The Stipulated Findings are set forth as the Findings in this
Order. The Consent Agreement has been approved.
I. ALLEGATIONS:
That Michelle Estabrook, a public official/public employee in her capacity as the Register
of Wills and Recorder of Deeds for Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania, violated Sections, I I 03(a)
and 1103(f) of the State Ethics Act (Act 93 of 1998):
(1) When she used the authority of her office for the private pecuniary benefit of
herself and/or a member of her immediate family by entering into a contract(s) with
her daughter to provide an audit for the Susquehanna County Register and
Recorder's Office;
(2) When she entered into a contract(s) with her daughter on behalf of the Susquehanna
County Register and Recorder's Office valued at $500.00 or more without an open
Estabrook, 21-009
Page 2
and public process, and when she had supervisory and/or overall responsibility for
the implementation and/or administration of the contract; and
(3) When she authorized payments to her daughter by issuing and signing checks to
her daughter.
11. FINDINGS:
1. Michelle Estabrook ("Estabrook") has served as the Susquehanna County ("County")
Register of Wills and Recorder of Deeds ("County Register and Recorder") since
approximately January 4, 2016.
a. The County is designated a Sixth Class County.
b. Estabrook oversees an office of four employees with an annual budget of
approximately $300,000.00.
2. Estabrook began employment with the County on May 24, 1982, as a tax claim student.
a. Estabrook has held positions in the County Register and Recorder's Office since
January 11, 1988, including the following: Clerk (1/11/88 - 7/7/92), 2"d Deputy
Recorder (7/8/92 - 8/13/98), 1" Deputy Recorder (8/14/98 - 8/19/2014), 1" Deputy
Register of Wills and Clerk of Orphans' Court (8/20/2014-1/3/2016), and Register
and Recorder — Elected (1/4/2016 to present).
3. The County Register and Recorder's Office serves as the Register of Wills, Recorder of
Deeds, and Clerk of the Orphans' Court.
a. The Recorder of Deeds is responsible for the recording of deeds, mortgages, power
of attorneys, clean and green flings, landowner consents, highway permits,
easements, military discharges, agricultural security areas, mortgage satisfactions,
mortgage releases, mortgage modifications, mortgage subordinations, leases, land
contracts, notary bonds and oaths, survey and subdivision neaps, UCC filings and
Act 287 (underground utility) filings. The Recorder of Deeds also handles the
collection of realty transfer tax for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the
local school districts and municipalities.
b. The Register of Wills handles the probate of estates, the collection of inheritance
tax for the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue, and the filing of inheritance tax
returns.
C. The Clerk of the Orphans' Court is responsible for the filing of adoptions, the
issuing of marriage licenses, and the appointment of a guardian for a minor or
incapacitated person.
Estabrook, 21-009
Page 3
4. The County Register and Recorder's Office has approximately seven operational accounts.
a. Accounts are maintained at First National Bank of Pennsylvania, NBT Bank, and
Peoples Security Bank & Trust.
b. Accounts maintained at First National Bank of Pennsylvania include a
Commonwealth Writ Tax account, Recorder of Deeds Record Improvement Fund,
and a Susquehanna County Inheritance Tax account.
C. Accounts maintained at Peoples Security Bank & Trust include a Recorder of
Deeds general account, a Susquehanna County Municipal Transfer Tax account,
and an Old Recorder of Deeds general account.
d. A Recorder of Deeds State Realty account has been maintained at NBT Bank.
S. Financial accounts under the control of the County Register and Recorder's Office are
funded by the County and through service fees collected by the County Register and
Recorder's Office.
a. Estabrook has signature authority and control over all of these accounts.
b. Estabrook is responsible for the collection of fees related to her duties as the County
Register and Recorder.
6. The County does not have a standard accounting software package countywide.
a. County row offices, including the Register and Recorder, Prothonotary, Sheriff, and
Clerk of Courts, use their own accounting software programs.
7. Operating budgets for the County row offices are annually approved by the County Board
of Commissioners.
S. Financial accounts for the County row offices, including the Register and Recorder's
Office, are annually audited by the County Board of Auditors.
a. The County Board of Auditors consists of three elected Auditors who report their
findings to the County Commissioners.
9. In 2019, questions were raised to the County Commissioners by the County Auditors
regarding accounting practices and financial discrepancies in the reports from the County
Register and Recorder's Office.
a. Estabrook did not provide necessary information to the County Auditors in a timely
fashion for calendar years 2018 and 2019.
Estabrook, 21-009
Page 4
b. Estabrook contended that she had problems reconciling her accounts based on a
change to accounting software.
10. On February 22, 2019, at 12:21 p.m., then County Auditor Susan Jennings ("Jennings")
emailed Estabrook under the subject topic "problems." In her email, Jennings advised
Estabrook that due to Estabrook's delay in getting information to the County Auditors, her
department could not be audited. The text of Jennings' email included:
a. "We (County Auditors) cannot audit your Department's several accounts in any
kind of constructive manner due to the fact that you will not release to me your
monthly paperwork in any kind of timely fashion.
Here we are in February 2019, and I still have to constantly ask for information for
every month since January 2018. I have only been able to partially complete
through July 2018. 1 asked you many, many, many times over the last several
months, and you always say you will get the info to me, and that's the last I hear of
it. Every single month.
I tried so hard to get your work over the last 6 months. These were the months
could spend a lot of time figuring out your banking status for the 4 accounts.
In March & April, we will all be busy auditing our yearly accounts. I will not be
able to get back to your Department for several months.
I don't understand the problems you have with getting paperwork done for the
previous month and putting it all together in the current month and putting it away.
Your paperwork is all over the place. And no one can help me out except you.
Hopefully, in 2 or 3 months I can begin this with you all over again. Till then, good
luck. Also, you should have already begun your January 2019 box. But I don't see
that either.
Hopefully, you can come up with a better plan to complete your monthly paperwork
on time. Thanks Susan Jennings, County Auditor."
b. Jennings was the County Auditor primarily responsible for auditing financial
accounts of the County Register and Recorder's Office.
11. In a letter dated August 29, 2019, County Auditors Jennings, George Starzec, and Richard
Suraci informed County Commissioners Alan Hall, Betsy Arnold, and Mary Ann Warren
that they could not complete the 2018 audit of the County Register and Recorder's Office
due to required documentation missing from Estabrook's office.
12. Issues with Estabrook's accounts, as indicated in Jennings' email, continued into the
beginning of 2020 when there was a change in County Auditors.
Estabrook, 21-009
Page 5
a. Rick Ainey and Bob Deluca replaced Jennings and George Starzec as County
Auditors effective January 2020.
b. Rick Ainey assumed primary audit responsibilities for financial accounts of the
County Register and Recorder's Office from Jennings effective January 2020.
13. The newly -elected County Auditors were tasked with completing the outstanding
reconciliations for the County Register and Recorder's Office for 2018 and 2019.
a. Estabrook again was unable to provide the necessary records in a timely fashion.
b. The County Auditors were also unable to obtain the necessary records from the
Chief Clerk's Office as Estabrook did not file any financial records with that office.
14. On January 3, 2020, Estabrook submitted a letter to the County Commissioners advising
them that she had hired an independent auditor to help correct her Quicken program issues.
a. Estabrook did not identify the independent auditor she hired.
b. Estabrook did not submit any information to the County Commissioners reflecting
that she sought or obtained any bids, quotes, or proposals for auditing services from
any other individuals.
15. Estabrook emailed the Chief Clerk's Office on January 7, 2020, at 12:17 p.m. to obtain a
copy of the agenda for the County Commissioners meeting on January 8, 2020.
a. Agenda item # 16 on the initial agenda included the following motion to be
approved regarding the appointment of an auditor for Estabrook's office:
b. "Motion by Commissioner (blank space) to ratify and accept the subcontracted
services of Christine Lee, Berlin NH, for the reconciling of Quicken for the Register
and Recorders Office, invoices will be paid using the Records Improvement funds
and not County Funds, per recommendation of Register and Recorder, Michelle
Estabrook. Second Commissioner (blank)."
C. Christine Lee ("Lee") is the daughter and immediate family member of Estabrook.
d. Estabrook never informed the County Commissioners that the auditor she selected
was her daughter.
16. Estabrook's January 3, 2020, letter requesting to hire her daughter as an independent
auditor was initially included as an agenda item for the January 8, 2020, meeting of the
County Commissioners.
Estabrook, 21-009
Page 6
a. Attached to Estabrook's letter was an invoice dated December 31, 2019, in the
amount of $1,000.00 from Christine Lee, Independent Accountant, [address
redacted].
b. An accompanying cover letter from Lee, also dated December 31, 2019, states that
the invoice was for "subcontracting work of Quicken for the Register & Recorders
Office of Susquehanna County."
1. Lee's cover letter identifies her as having a Bachelor of Science degree in
accounting from Southern New Hampshire University.
2. The letter did not indicate Lee being a Certified Public Accountant.
17. The agenda item to approve Lee as an independent auditor for her mother's office was
removed from the final agenda for the January 8, 2020, County Commissioners meeting
after County Commissioner Alan Hall learned of the family relationship between
Estabrook and Lee.
a. The County Commissioners' Office then offered to assist Estabrook in reconciling
her accounts.
b. Estabrook did not acknowledge or accept the County Commissioners' offer of
assistance.
18. Estabrook was unable to reconcile her financial records for 2018 and 2019, however,
Estabrook did not provide the newly -elected County Auditors with sufficient records
necessary to reconcile the accounts of her office.
19. During 2020, the County Auditors continued to update the County Commissioners and
Estabrook regarding their attempts to reconcile the County Register and Recorder's
Office's financial accounts.
a. In correspondence dated June 29, 2020, from the County Auditors to Estabrook and
the County Commissioners, the County Auditors advised that:
"The Auditors have been working with Michelle and her staff and have found them
to be cooperative and responsive in a timely manner to our requests for information
and documentation. We are putting in place procedures in the auditor's office that
we hope will prevent the recurrence of the backlog that currently exists. We are
currently working to complete the second half of 2018 and all of calendar year 2019
and hope to be able to provide a date of completion soon; then to start on calendar
year 2020."
20. On September 16, 2020, the County Auditors provided Estabrook with suggestions and a
plan of action for continued cooperation following approximately nine months of
attempting to review and reconcile accounts.
Estabrook, 21-009
Page 7
a. The County Auditors' correspondence to Estabrook noted that they had invested
nine months trying to bring her records up to standards, and they needed
Estabrook's cooperation.
21. The September 16, 2020, County Auditors' report to Estabrook included a plan of action
to help reconcile Estabrook's accounts and requested a response from Estabrook by
September 23, 2020.
a. The County Auditors' correspondence included the following:
"A set plan of action should be considered at this time to bring your records up to
standards." The County Auditors suggested that four things should be implemented
and requested a response from Estabrook by September 23, 2020. The County
Auditors suggested:
1. "We should identify a person from your office to be the `point person'
between each of our offices. The person should have the flexibility and your
support to move within your office to gather the necessary information that
will help address getting your records up to standard."
2. "This person should interface with the Auditor's office to establish a
mutually agreed upon format (spread sheet) that your records will be
maintained."
3. "We suggest that the Auditors and this point person have a set meeting time
each week to establish and maintain an action plan to accomplish this
activity. Our suggestion is Monday 9-9:15 a.m. weekly meeting,"
4. "We would like to start this process on Monday September 281h and have a
meeting each Monday the courthouse is open through October 26th."
b. There is no record of a response by Estabrook to the County Auditors.
22. The County Commissioners met with Estabrook in June and again in September 2020
regarding the need for the accounts to be audited and reconciled.
a. Estabrook informed the County Commissioners that she needed help with the
reconciliation process.
b. Estabrook did not inform the County Commissioners that she had been paying her
daughter for accounting services since early 2020.
23. As a result of the September meeting with Estabrook, the County Commissioners
authorized County First Deputy Treasurer Rebecca Wescott ("Wescott") to perform a
reconciliation of the accounts for 2018 and 2019.
Estabrook, 21-009
Page 8
a. Wescott was selected based on her knowledge of Quicken and QuickBooks
software applications.
b. Wescott was paid $276.73 in overtime compensation for her time spent attempting
to reconcile the accounts of Estabrook's office.
24. Wescott determined that for 2018 and 2019, there were accounting irregularities which
affected the reconciling of the accounts.
a. Wescott determined that for 2018 and 2019, the issue was poor bookkeeping
practices by Estabrook, and there was no indication that money was missing.
b. Problems identified by Wescott included deposits not being properly recorded and
improper transfers between accounts.
C. Wescott did not have any communication with Lee on reconciling the 2018 and
2019 accounts.
25. Sherry St. Clair ("St. Clair") of T&S Tax Service, Inc. was hired by the County to provide
Estabrook with training on the use of QuickBooks in 2021.
a. St. Clair's initial duty was to input data from financial accounts for calendar year
2020 to show Estabrook how to use QuickBooks going forward.
b. After inputting the data for 2020, St. Clair found payments issued from a County
Register and Recorder's Office improvement account to Lee.
1. St. Clair found ten payments of $1,000.00 each to Lee in 2020.
2. There were no invoices from Lee to support the issuance of the payments.
C. St. Clair reported to Wescott that payments were made to Lee.
1. Wescott informed her that Lee was Estabrook's daughter.
d. St. Clair completed the reconciliation for 2020 but did provide training on
QuickBooks to Estabrook.
e. St. Clair did not find any funds missing from the accounts she reviewed.
f. St. Clair billed the County and was paid $4,072.50 for the services provided
regarding this matter.
26. Estabrook began paying Lee in 2020 even though the County Commissioners refused to
approve a contract and the County Auditors were working to reconcile the accounts.
Estabrook, 21-009
Page 9
a. The first payment was made on March 6, 2020, in the amount of $1,000.00.
b. Estabrook did not disclose to anyone that she was paying her daughter.
C. During this time, Estabrook was to be working with County Auditors DeLuca,
Ainey, and Suraci in an effort to reconcile her accounts.
27. Lee has been employed as a docket clerk for the Vermont Superior Court since June 2016.
a. According to her LinkedIn profile, Lee worked as a collections officer for
Northway Bank from October 2013 to June 2015 and as a Susquehanna County
Domestic Relations Officer prior to that.
b. Lee was employed by the County from approximately March 10, 2008, to January
18, 2013.
1. Estabrook did not directly supervise Lee while Lee was employed by the
County.
C. No information was found confirming if Lee is a Certified public Accountant or
has ever been employed by an accounting firm.
28. Estabrook did not disclose to the County Auditors that she was paying her daughter for
services during the same time period that the County Auditors were attempting to reconcile
Estabrook's accounts.
29. The County Auditors subsequently found an additional two payments of $1,000.00 each
made to Lee in 2021.
a. The payments made by Estabrook from accounts of her office to Lee totaled
$12,000.00.
30. The County has no records documenting any services allegedly provided by Lee to justify
the $12,000.00 in payments.
a. County officials in the Treasurer's and Commissioners' Offices found no notes,
reports, invoices, or other work product indicating that any work was performed by
Lee during their audit process.
31. Estabrook concealed from the County Auditors and St. Clair during their reviews of her
accounts that she was paying her daughter to allegedly perform a similar service.
32. Attorney Joseph McGraw ("McGraw"), Counsel for Estabrook, provided documents in
response to a State Ethics Commission subpoena for records relating to the payments
Estabrook issued to Lee.
Estabrookc, 21-009
Page 10
a. Documents provided included invoices and monthly descriptions of work
performed.
b. These documents provided by Estabrook through her attorney were not given to the
County Commissioners.
33. Documentation submitted by McGraw to the Investigative Division of the State Ethics
Commission included monthly invoices and corresponding description of work documents
as listed below:
a. Monthly Invoices from Lee:
Date
Invoice #
Amount
Services
12/31/19
2020-01
$1,000.00
Quicken Reconciliation - January 2020
02/01/20
2020-02
$1,000.00
Quicken Reconciliation - February 2020
03/01/20
2020-03
$1,000.00
Quicken Reconciliation - March 2020
04/01/20
2020-04
$1,000.00
Quicken Reconciliation - April 2020
05/01/20
2020-05
$1,000.00
Quicken Reconciliation - May 2020
06/01/20
2020-06
$1,000.00
Quicken Reconciliation - June 2020
07/01/20
2020-07
$1,000.00
Quicken Reconciliation - July 2020
08/01/20
2020-08
$1,000,00
Quicken Reconciliation - August 2020
09/01/20
2020-09
$1,000.00
Quicken Reconciliation - September 2020
10/01/20
2020-10
$1,000.00
Quicken Reconciliation - October 2020
11/01/20
2020-11
$1,000.00
Quicken Reconciliation - November 2020
12/01/20
2020-11
$1,000.00
Quicken Reconciliation - December 2020
$12,000.00
Monthly Description of Work:
Work completed for timeframe of January 1, 2020, through January 31, 2020:
• Initial Set Up of Quicken.
• Corresponded with Michelle Estabrook with regard to years being covered
in 2020 which are 2004 through 2012.
• Worked simultaneously on Writ Account and Municipal Account beginning
with December 2012 and ended with April 2012.
No discrepancies were found to account for the negative balance in this data.
Work completed for timeframe of February 1, 2020, through February 29,
2020:
0 Corresponded with Michelle Estabrook with regard to prior month reports.
Estabrook, 21-009
Page 11
Worked simultaneously on Writ Account and Municipal Account beginning
with April 2012 and ended with August 2011.
No discrepancies were found to account for the negative balance in this data.
Work completed for timeframe of March 1, 2020 through March 31, 2020:
Corresponded with Michelle Estabrook with regard to prior month reports.
Worked simultaneously on Writ Account and Municipal Account beginning
with August 2011 and ended with December 2010.
No discrepancies were found to account for the negative balance in this data.
Work completed for timeframe of April 1, 2020, through April 30, 2020:
Corresponded with Michelle Estabrook with regard to prior month reports.
Worked simultaneously on Writ Account and Municipal Account beginning
with December 2010 and ending with April 2010.
No discrepancies were found to account for the negative balance in this data.
Work completed for timeframe of May 1, 2020, through May 31, 2020:
Corresponded with Michelle Estabrook with regard to prior month reports.
Worked simultaneously on Writ Account and Municipal Account beginning
with April 2010 and ended with August 2009.
No discrepancies were found to account for the negative balance in this data.
Work completed for timeframe of June 1, 2020, through June 30, 2020:
Corresponded with Michelle Estabrook with regard to prior month reports.
Worked simultaneously on Writ Account and Municipal Account beginning
with July 2009 and ended with November 2008.
No discrepancies were found to account for the negative balance in this data.
Work completed for timeframe of July 1, 2020, through July 31, 2020:
Corresponded with Michelle Estabrook with regard to prior month reports.
Estabrook, 21-009
Page 12
• Worked simultaneously on Writ Account and Municipal Account beginning
with October 2008 and ended with February 2008.
No discrepancies were found to account for the negative balance in this data.
Work completed for timeframe of August 1, 2020, through August 31, 2020:
• Corresponded with Michelle Estabrook with regard to prior month reports.
Worked simultaneously on Writ Account and Municipal Account beginning
with December 2008 and ended with May 2007.
No discrepancies were found to account for the negative balance in this data.
Work completed for timeframe of September 1, 2020, through September 30,
2020:
Corresponded with Michelle Estabrook with regard to prior month reports.
Worked simultaneously on Writ Account and Municipal Account beginning
with April 2007 and ended with August 2006.
No discrepancies were found to account for the negative balance in this data.
Work completed for timeframe of October 1, 2020, through October 31, 2020:
Corresponded with Michelle Estabrook with regard to prior month reports.
Worked simultaneously on Writ Account and Municipal Account beginning
with July 2006 and ended with November 2005.
No discrepancies were found to account for the negative balance in this data.
Consulted with Michelle Estabrook regarding Quicken versus QuickBooks.
Advised that she may want to try a trial version of QuickBooks prior to
switching over in order to check and see if the product will provide the
information she needs for her reports.
Work completed for timeframe of November 1, 2020, through November 30,
2020:
• Corresponded with Michelle Estabrook with regard to prior month reports.
• Worked simultaneously on Writ Account and Municipal Account beginning
with October 2005 and ended with January 2005.
Estabrook, 21-009
Page 13
No discrepancies were found to account for the negative balance in this data.
Work completed for timeframe of December 1, 2020, through December 31,
2020:
Corresponded with Michelle Estabrook with regard to prior month reports.
Worked simultaneously on Writ Account and Municipal Account beginning
with December 2004 and ended with January 2004.
No discrepancies were found to account for the negative balance in this data.
Consulted with Michelle Estabrook regarding QuickBooks versus Quicken
Advised that she would snake out better with Quicken as the QuickBooks
software was not giving a detailed enough breakdown for her financial
reports.
Advised Michelle Estabrook that I was unable to find the discrepancy within
the timeframe of 2004 to 2012. It was either there when the information was
entered into Quicken in 2004 {meaning the discrepancy occurred before
2004) or it is in the second half of the data I have not yet worked on (2013-
2020).
34. Between March 6, 2020, and February 5, 2021, Estabrook issued twelve checks totaling
$12,000.00 to her daughter from a County Register and Recorder's Office account under
Estabrook's control.
Five of the twelve checks included Estabrook's signature and that of a County
employee she supervised.
b. Check numbers 345 and 350 were signed by Estabrook and Rachel Carrico
("Carrico").
1. Carrico is the First Deputy Register of Wills.
C. Check numbers 351, 355, and 356 were signed by Estabrook and LuAnn Myers
("Myers").
1. Myers is the First Deputy Recorder of Deeds.
d. The remaining checks, numbers 357, 360, 361, 364, 365, 371, and 372, were signed
solely by Estabrook.
35. The following chart details all twelve payments Estabrook issued to Lee:
Estabrook, 21-009
Page 14
Check
Date
Check 4
Amount
Signed
2nd Signature
03/06/20
345
$1,000.00
Yes
Rachel Carrico
03/06/20
350
$1,000.00
Yes
Rachel Carrico
04/06/20
351
$1,000.00
Yes
LuAnn Myers
07/02/20
355
$1,000.00
Yes
LuAnn Myers
07/02/20
356
$1,000.00
Yes
LuAnn Myers
07/02/20
357
$1,000.00
Yes
None
09/09/20
360
$1,000.00
Yes
None
09/09/20
361
$1,000.00
Yes
None
10/30/20
364
$1,000.00
Yes
None
10/30/20
365
$1,000.00
Yes
None
02/05/21
371
$1,000.00
Yes
None
02/05/21
372
$1,000.00
Yes
None
$12,000.00
a. The reverse side of each check includes a signature for Christine Lee with no
corresponding deposit information.
36. All twelve payments were made from an Improvement Fund account under Estabrook's
control.
a. This account was funded through fees associated with each document filed in the
County Register and Recorder's Office.
b. Funds in the account are to be used "to support development and improvement of
office records management."
C. Prior approval from the County Commissioners is not required for expenditures
from this account since it is an account under the control of the County Register
and Recorder.
37. Neither Carrico nor Myers was provided with supporting documentation or the purpose of
the checks issued to Lee.
a. Both signed the respective checks at Estabrook's direction along with other
payments issued in the normal course of business.
38. Neither Carrico nor Myers provided Lee with any documents from the County Register
and Recorder's Office to review.
a. Neither observed Lee ever physically coming into the County Register and
Recorder's Office to review records.
b. Neither received and/or transferred any phone calls from Lee to Estabrook.
Estabrook, 21-009
Page 15
39. Lee did not have a County -issued email address or VPN access necessary for County
records of her mother's office.
40. Estabrook did have a County -issued VPN.
a. The IP address history for Estabrook includes no instances where Estabrook's
County -issued VPN was accessed from New Hampshire.
b. Four separate IP addresses were used to access Estabrook's County -issued VPN
between August 5, 2019, and May 13, 2020.
C. The specific regions covered by the IP addresses are: Buffalo, New York; Vestal,
New York; Susquehanna, Pennsylvania; and New Milford, Pennsylvania.
41. Between December 2019 and December 2020, three calls were exchanged between
Estabrook and Lee on Estabrook's direct office line of [telephone number I redacted].
These calls occurred as follows:
a. 6/4/20 from [telephone number 2 redacted] to [telephone number 1 redacted],
duration 16:26 to 16:34.
6/6/20 from [telephone number 1 redacted] to [telephone number 2 redacted],
duration 16:44 to 16:44.
6/6/20 from [telephone number 2 redacted] to [telephone number 1 redacted],
duration 16:48 to 16:50.
b. The phone number listed on Lee's invoices is [telephone number 2 redacted].
42. As a result of questions being raised by County officials over the payments Estabrook
issued to her daughter, Lee submitted a letter of resignation and a Report of Findings
covering the period from January 1, 2020, to December 31, 2020, dated February 27, 2021.
a. Lee cited the following as the reason for her resignation: "Due to the fact that the
county feels the need to have additional personnel reviewing and editing the
financial accounts for this office, I am unable to effectively and accurately continue
reviewing the accounts for negative discrepancy I have been asked to find. As such,
I will no longer be working on this project for this office."
43. Lee's Report of Findings reflected that she tried to find discrepancies dating back fifteen
years.
a. Estabrook has been the elected County Register and Recorder since 2016 and the
reconciliation issues dated only to 2018.
Estabrook, 21-009
Page 16
b. Lee wrote in her Report of Findings that she had "not yet had the opportunity to
fully review the accounts for 2013-2020, so the discrepancy for the negative
balance may very well lie within the documents for these years."
44. Lee's Report of Findings contained the following verbatim information:
a. Findings & Report for January 1, 2020 -- December 31, 2020
For this position, I have been asked to review the accounts for the Register &
Recorders Office of Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania (specifically the Writ
Account and Municipal Account) to try to determine the negative balance
discrepancy that has been ongoing since 2004 (when the accounts were entered into
Quicken).
Since this discrepancy has carried over for over fifteen (15) years, I began my work
in 2020 at the approximate half -way point (2012) and worked backwards with the
intention of beginning at 2013 and moving forward in 2021. It was my intention to
have covered all years in question by the end of 2021 which would be consistent
with my initial timeline given of twenty-four (24) months.
For the years of 2004 - 2012 (only years covered in 2020), I could find no
explanation for the discrepancy of the negative balance that had been carried over.
This could very well have been a clerical error that occurred prior to 2004 when
any when everything was manually entered, and if so I am not able to track that
remotely from New Hampshire.
Additionally, I have been assisting Michelle Estabrook with any questions
regarding monthly reconciliations that she may encounter, which includes taking
phone calls as needed along with responding to any email documents sent in a
timely fashion
I have also been working to consult with Ms. Estabrook regarding the pros and cons
of staying with Quicken versus switching her software over to QuickBooks as I
have worked with both programs extensively. I work with Quicken for the
Susquehanna County assignment, and I have worked with QuickBooks while
completing my work with Essex County, Vermont where I complete their yearly
financial audits.
As stated above, I have not yet had the opportunity to fully review the accounts for
2013 - 2020, so the discrepancy for the negative balance may very well lie within
the documentation for these years. Signed Christine Lee July 26, 2021.
45. Between March 6, 2020, and February 5, 2021, Estabrook issued twelve payments in the
amount of $1,000.00 each to her daughter.
a. These payments were issued without the knowledge, consent, or approval of the
County Commissioners.
Estabrook, 21-009
Page 17
b. Estabrook never requested authority to obtain bids for the performance of
accounting services for her department.
C. Estabrook issued payments to her daughter even though the County Commissioners
voted against a contract with her daughter.
d. Estabrook did not follow an open and public process when hiring Lee.
1. Each of the ten payments Estabrook issued to Lee during 2020 were in
excess of $500.00.
2. Both payments Estabrook issued to Lee during 2021 were in excess of
$500.00 each.
e. Estabrook's was the lone signature on seven of the twelve checks issued.
f. Five other checks included Estabrook's signature and the signature of one of her
subordinate employees.
1. Those signatures were obtained by Estabrook without providing the co-
signers/subordinate employees any supporting documentation or work
product to justify the payments.
g. The County was not provided with any documentation in support of the payments
Estabrook issued to Lee.
46. Estabrook's use of the authority of her public position to authorize and issue payments to
her daughter resulted in a private pecuniary benefit to her daughter of $12,000.00,
III. DISCUSSION:
As the Register of Wills and Recorder of Deeds ("Register and Recorder") for Susquehanna
County, Pennsylvania, since approximately January 4, 2016, Respondent Michelle Estabrook
("Estabrook") has been 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 Estabrook violated Sections 1103(a) and 1103(f) of the Ethics Act:
(1) When she used the authority of her office for the private pecuniary benefit of
herself and/or a member of her immediate family by entering into a contract(s) with
her daughter to provide an audit for the County Register and Recorder's Office;
(2) When she entered into a contract(s) with her daughter on behalf of the County
Register and Recorder's Office valued at $500.00 or more without an open and
Estabrook, 21-009
Page 18
public process, and when she had supervisory and/or overall responsibility for the
implementation and/or administration of the contract; and
(3) When she authorized payments to her daughter by issuing and signing checks to
her daughter.
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.
Subject to the statutory exclusions to the Ethics Act's definition of the term "conflict" or
"conflict of interest," 65 Pa.C.S. § 1102, pursuant to Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, a public
official/public employee is prohibited 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. A daughter is a member
of "immediate family" as the Ethics Act defines that term. See, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1102.
Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act imposes certain restrictions as to contracting:
Estabrook, 21-009
Page 19
§ 1103. Restricted activities
(f) Contract. No public official or public employee or his
spouse or child or any business in which the person or his spouse or
child is associated shall enter into any contract valued at $500 or
more with the governmental body with which the public official or
public employee is associated or any subcontract valued at $500 or
more with any person who has been awarded a contract with the
governmental body with which the public official or public
employee is associated, unless the contract has been awarded
through an open and public process, including prior public notice
and subsequent public disclosure of all proposals considered and
contracts awarded. In such a case, the public official or public
employee shall not have any supervisory or overall responsibility
for the implementation or administration of the contract. Any
contract or subcontract made in violation of this subsection shall be
voidable by a court of competent jurisdiction if the suit is
commenced within 90 days of the making of the contract or
subcontract.
65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(f).
The term "contract" is defined in the Ethics Act as follows:
§ 1102. Definitions
"Contract." An agreement or arrangement for the
acquisition, use or disposal by the Commonwealth or a political
subdivision of consulting or other services or of supplies,
materials, equipment, land or other personal or real property. The
term shall not mean an agreement or arrangement between the
State or political subdivision as one party and a public official or
public employee as the other party, concerning his expense,
reimbursement, salary, wage, retirement or other benefit, tenure or
other matters in consideration of his current public employment
with the Commonwealth or a political subdivision.
65 Pa.C.S. § 1102.
Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act provides in part that no public official/public employee
or his spouse or child or business with which the public official/public employee or his spouse or
child is associated may enter into a contract with his governmental body valued at five hundred
dollars or more or any subcontract valued at five hundred dollars or more with any person who has
been awarded a contract with the governmental body with which the public official/public
employee is associated unless the contract is awarded through an open and public process
Estabrook, 21-009
Page 20
including prior public notice and subsequent public disclosure of all proposals considered and
contracts awarded.
As noted above, the parties have submitted a Consent Agreement and Stipulation of
Findings. The parties' Stipulated Findings are set forth above as the Findings of this Commission.
We shall now summarize the relevant facts as contained therein.
Estabrook has served as the County Register and Recorder since approximately January 4,
2016. Estabrook held various positions of employment in the County Register and Recorder's
Office from January 11, 1988, until January 4, 2016. The County Register and Recorder serves as
the Register of Wills, Recorder of Deeds, and Clerk of the Orphans' Court for the County. The
County Register and Recorder's Office has financial accounts with three banks, including, in
pertinent part, an Improvement Fund account with First National Bank of Pennsylvania. Estabrook
has signature authority and control over all of these financial accounts, which are funded by the
County and through service fees collected by the County Register and Recorder's Office.
Each County row office, including the County Register and Recorder's Office, uses its own
accounting software program. The financial accounts of each County row office are audited
annually by the County Board of Auditors, which consists of three Auditors.
In 2019, County Auditor Susan Jennings ("Jennings") was the County Auditor primarily
responsible for auditing the financial accounts of the County Register and Recorder's Office. In
an email sent to Estabrook on February 22, 2019, Jennings advised Estabrook that the financial
accounts of the County Register and Recorder's Office could not be audited for 2018 in any kind
of constructive manner due to Estabrook's ongoing failure to provide necessary information to
Jennings in a timely fashion. By letter dated August 29, 2019, the County Auditors informed the
County Commissioners that the 2018 audit of the financial accounts of the County Register and
Recorder's Office could not be completed due to a lack of documentation required for the audit.
As a result of Estabrook not providing necessary information to the County Auditors in a timely
fashion, by January 2020, the County Auditors had not been able to complete their audit of the
financial accounts of the County Register and Recorder's Office for 2018 and 2019. Estabrook
contended that she had not provided the information to the County Auditors because she had
problems reconciling her financial accounts due to a change in accounting software.
Christine Lee ("Lee") is Estabrook's daughter. Lee has been employed as a docket clerk
for the Vermont Superior Court since June 2016. Lee previously worked as a County Domestic
Relations Officer from approximately March 2008 to January 2013 and as a Collections Officer
for Northway Bank from October 2013 to June 2015.
On January 3, 2020, Estabrook submitted a letter to the County Commissioners which
requested that they approve the hiring of an independent auditor who Estabrook had selected to
help correct her Quicken software program issues. Attached to Estabrook's letter was an invoice
dated December 31, 2019, in the amount of $1,000.00, from Christine Lee, Independent
Accountant, New Hampshire, for accounting services for January 2020. An accompanying cover
letter from Lee stated that the invoice was for "subcontracting work of Quicken for the Register &
Recorders Office of Susquehanna County." The cover letter identified Lee as having a Bachelor
Estabrook, 21-009
Page 21
of Science degree in accounting from Southern New Hampshire University. The cover letter did
not identify Lee as being a Certified Public Accountant. Estabrook did not inform the County
Commissioners that Lee is her daughter.
Estabrook's request that the County Commissioners approve the hiring of Lee as an
independent auditor for the County Register and Recorder's Office was initially included as an
item on the agenda for the January 8, 2020, meeting of the County Commissioners. The agenda
item regarding the hiring of Lee was removed from the agenda for the meeting after County
Commissioner Alan Hall learned of the family relationship between Estabrook and Lee. Although
the County Commissioners then offered to assist Estabrook in reconciling her financial accounts,
she did not acknowledge or accept the offer.
During 2020, the County Auditors continued their attempts to audit the County Register
and Recorder's Office's financial accounts for 2018 and 2019. In a September 16, 2020, report to
Estabrook, the County Auditors noted that they had spent approximately nine months trying to
bring her records up to standards and that they needed her cooperation. The report provided
Estabrook with suggestions for a plan of action to bring her records up to standards.
In September 2020, the County Commissioners met with Estabrook with regard to the need
for the financial accounts of the County Register and Recorder's Office to be reconciled and
audited. After Estabrook informed the County Commissioners that she needed help with the
reconciliation process, the County Commissioners authorized County First Deputy Treasurer
Rebecca Wescott ("Wescott") to perform a reconciliation of the financial accounts of the County
Register and Recorder's Office for 2018 and 2019. Wescott subsequently determined that the
issues with reconciling the financial accounts were the result of poor bookkeeping practices by
Estabrook and that there was no indication any money was missing.
In 2021, the County fired Sherry St, Clair ("St. Clair") of T&S Tax Service, Inc. to provide
Estabrook with training on the use of QuickBooks. St. Clair's initial duty was to input data from
financial accounts for 2020 in order to show Estabrook how to use QuickBooks going forward.
After inputting the data for 2020, St. Clair found ten payments of $1,000.00 each which had been
issued to Lee from the Improvement Fund account of the County Register and Recorder's Office.
These payments were issued to Lee between March 6, 2020, and October 30, 2020. There were
no invoices from Lee to support the issuance of the payments. St. Clair reported to Wescott that
the payments had been made to Lee. The County Auditors subsequently found two additional
payments of $1,000.00 each which were made to Lee in 2021 from the Improvement Fund account.
The County has no records documenting any services provided by Lee to justify the $12,000.00 in
payments made to her. Estabrook did not disclose to anyone that she was issuing payments to her
daughter for accounting services at the same time that the County Auditors were attempting to
audit the County Register and Recorder's Office's financial accounts.
Between March 6, 2020, and February S, 2021, Estabrook issued twelve checks totaling
$12,000.00 to her daughter from the Improvement Fund account of the County Register and
Recorder's Office. Five of the checks were signed by both Estabrook and a County employee who
she supervised, and seven of the checks were signed solely by Estabrook.
Estabrook, 21-009
Page 22
As a result of questions being raised by County officials over the payments issued to Lee
by Estabrook, Lee submitted a letter of resignation and a Report of Findings dated February 27,
2021, to the County. The Report of Findings, which covered the period from January 1, 2020, to
December 31, 2020, reflected that Lee tried to find discrepancies dating back fifteen years, even
though the reconciliation issues dated only to 2018. Lee indicated in her Findings Report that she
had been asked to review the financial accounts of the County Register and Recorder's Office in
an attempt to find a negative balance discrepancy which had been ongoing since 2004. Lee further
indicated that she was resigning from this project because she was unable to effectively and
accurately continue reviewing the financial accounts "due to the fact that the County feels the need
to have additional personnel reviewing and editing the financial accounts."
Having highlighted the Stipulated Findings and issues before us, we shall now apply the
Ethics Act to determine the proper disposition of this case.
The parties' Consent Agreement sets forth a proposed resolution of the allegations as
follows:
3. The Investigative Division will recommend the following in relation
to the above allegations:
a. That a violation of Section 1103(a) of the Public
Official and Employee Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. §
1103(a), occurred when [Estabrook] entered into a
contract with her daughter, a member of her
immediate family, to provide an audit for the County
Register and Recorder's Office.
b. That a violation of Section 1103(f) of the Public
Official and Employee Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. §
1103(f), occurred when [Estabrook] entered into a
contract valued at $500,00 or more with her
daughter, a member of her immediate family, on
behalf of the County Register and Recorder's Office
without an open and public process, and when she
had supervisory and/or overall responsibility for the
implementation and/or administration of the
contract.
C. That a violation of Section 1103(a) of the Public
Official and Employee Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. §
1103(a), occurred when [Estabrook] authorized
payments to her daughter, a member of her
immediate family, [by] issuing and signing checks.
4. The Investigative Division has received verification that
Respondent has reimbursed in full the fund from which the
Estabrook, 2I-009
Page 23
payments were made; therefore, the Investigative Division
recommends no monetary penalty be imposed.
5. The Investigative Division will recommend that the State Ethics
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.
a. The Respondent has been advised that as a matter of
course, all orders from the Commission are provided
to the Attorney General, albeit without any specific
recommendations pursuant to paragraph 5 above.
b. The Respondent has been advised that all orders
become public records and may be acted upon by law
enforcement as they deem appropriate.
C. The non -referral language contained in this
paragraph is considered an essential part of the
negotiated consent agreement.
Consent Agreement, at 1-2.
In considering the Consent Agreement, we accept the parties' recommendations for
findings that: (1) a violation of Section 11 03(a) of the Ethics Act occurred when Estabrook entered
into a contract with her daughter, a member of her immediate family, to provide an audit for the
County Register and Recorder's Office; (2) a violation of Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act
occurred when Estabrook entered into a contract valued at $500.00 or more with her daughter on
behalf of the County Register and Recorder's Office without an open and public process, and when
she had supervisory and/or overall responsibility for the implementation and/or administration of
the contract; and (3) a violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act occurred when Estabrook
authorized payments to her daughter by issuing and signing checks.
Estabrook used the authority of her office as the County Register and Recorder when she
entered into an agreement or arrangement (contract) with her daughter, Christine Lee, for the
provision of accounting services in 2020 with regard to auditing/reconciling the financial accounts
of the County Register and Recorder's Office. Lee was paid $12,000.00 for her accounting
services. Estabrook did not follow an open and public process when she awarded the contract to
Lee, and given that Estabrook was the only County official aware of the contract, Estabrook clearly
had supervisory or overall responsibility for the implementation of the contract. Estabrook used
the authority of her office when she issued and signed twelve checks, each in the amount of
Estabrook, 21-009
Page 24
$1,000.00, to Lee from the Improvement Fund account of the County Register and Recorder's
Office in relation to the contract.
Based upon the Stipulated Findings and Consent Agreement, we hold that: (1) Estabrook
violated Section I I03(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § I I03(a), when she entered into a contract
with her daughter, a member of her immediate family, to provide an audit for the County Register
and Recorder's Office; (2) a violation of Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(f),
occurred when Estabrook entered into a contract valued at $500.00 or more with her daughter on
behalf of the County Register and Recorder's Office without an open and public process, and when
she had supervisory and/or overall responsibility for the implementation and/or administration of
the contract; and (3) a violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a),
occurred when Estabrook authorized payments to her daughter by issuing and signing checks.
Inasmuch as the Investigative Division is not seeking the imposition of any monetary
penalty on the basis that it has received verification that Estabrook has reimbursed in full the fund
from which the payments were made, no further action is warranted in this case.
We determine that the Consent Agreement submitted by the parties sets forth a proper
disposition for this case, based upon our review as reflected in the above analysis and the totality
of the facts and circumstances.
IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
I . As the Register of Wills and Recorder of Deeds ("Register and Recorder") for Susquehanna
County ("County"), Pennsylvania, since approximately January 4, 2016, Respondent
Michelle Estabrook ("Estabrook") has been 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. Estabrook violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), when she
entered into a contract with her daughter, a member of her immediate family, to provide an
audit for the County Register and Recorder's Office.
A violation of Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(f), occurred when
Estabrook entered into a contract valued at $500.00 or more with her daughter on behalf of
the County Register and Recorder's Office without an open and public process, and when
she had supervisory and/or overall responsibility for the implementation and/or
administration of the contract.
4. A violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), occurred when
Estabrook authorized payments to her daughter by issuing and signing checks.
5. Inasmuch as the Investigative Division is not seeking the imposition of any monetary
penalty on the basis that it has received verification that Estabrook has reimbursed in full
the fund from which the payments were made, no further action is warranted in this case.
In Re: Michelle Estabrook, File Docket: 21-009
Respondent Date Decided: 4/21/22
Date Mailed: 4/22/22
ORDER NO. 1801
I. Michelle Estabrook ("Estabrook"), as the Register of Wills and Recorder of Deeds
("Register and Recorder") for Susquehanna County ("County"), Pennsylvania, violated
Section 1103(a) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act ("Ethics Act"), 65 Pa.C.S.
§ 1103(a), when she entered into a contract with her daughter, a member of her immediate
family, to provide an audit for the County Register and Recorder's Office.
2. A violation of Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(f), occurred when
Estabrook entered into a contract valued at $500.00 or more with her daughter on behalf of
the County Register and Recorder's Office without an open and public process, and when
she had supervisory and/or overall responsibility for the implementation and/or
administration of the contract.
3. A violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), occurred when
Estabrook authorized payments to her daughter by issuing and signing checks.
4. Inasmuch as the Investigative Division is not seeking the imposition of any monetary
penalty on the basis that it has received verification that Estabrook has reimbursed in full
the fund from which the payments were made, no further action is warranted in this case.
BY THE COMMISSION,
Nicholas A. Colafella, Chai