Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

GEORGE F. UREMOVICH v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (11/21/89)

decided: November 21, 1989.

GEORGE F. UREMOVICH, PETITIONER,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, STATE ETHICS COMMISSION, RESPONDENT. LARRY SPAHR, PETITIONER, V. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, STATE ETHICS COMMISSION, RESPONDENT



STATE ETHICS COMMISSION, Petition for Review.

COUNSEL

Thomas A. Lonich, with him, Robert L. Ceisler, Ceisler, Richman & Smith, Washington, for petitioners.

Vincent J. Dopko, Chief Counsel, Harrisburg, for respondent.

Craig, Barry and Smith, JJ.

Author: Craig

[ 129 Pa. Commw. Page 550]

George F. Uremovich and Larry Spahr file appeals, now consolidated, from respective State Ethics Commission decisions that each man used his position as an elected supervisor of Union Township, a second class township, to obtain financial gain in violation of section 3(a) of the State Ethics Act.*fn1

Specifically, the commission found, after a hearing, that, although both supervisors also serve as township roadmasters, each received township-paid life and health insurance benefits,*fn2 which terminate upon retirement, without the affirmative approval of the township board of auditors. Additionally, the commission found that both men received overtime and holiday pay*fn3 for distributing surplus food and resurfacing roads while acting in their capacity as supervisors. According to the commission, the men received this pay without auditor approval, in violation of section 515 of the Second Class Township Code,*fn4 which provides compensation limits for supervisors. The commission has ordered Uremovich to remit $4,335.17 and Spahr to remit $3,311.07 as restitution for the financial gains received.

[ 129 Pa. Commw. Page 551]

Uremovich, a supervisor since 1986, and Spahr, a supervisor since 1978, contend that the commission erred because, as roadmasters, they are employees entitled to the same township-paid insurance benefits and compensation that is extended to all township road crew employees. There is no dispute that Uremovich and Spahr in fact received the same compensation that all township road crew employees received.

In cases involving the commission, our scope of review is limited to a determination of whether factual findings are supported by substantial evidence, an error of law has been committed, or constitutional rights have been violated. Yocabet v. State Ethics Commission, 109 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 432, 531 A.2d 536 (1987).

1. Insurance Benefits

The first issue is whether the two township supervisor-roadmasters were entitled to township-paid insurance benefits, without ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.