Share This Page

Leetsdale councilman, ex-councilman found guilty of ethics violations, must pay

| Thursday, March 21, 2013, 12:01 a.m.

A former Leetsdale councilman and a current councilman must pay money to the borough and the state for violating the state Ethics Act.

Councilman Roger Nanni and former councilman Michael Bajsec used their positions as elected officials to get work for family members, a report from the State Ethics Commission said.

Bajsec declined to comment. Nanni could not be reached for comment.

In the report, investigators said Bajsec helped to get his wife, Sandra, a job as junior clerk in the borough office.

Bajsec asked Nanni, then-council president, to consider his wife for an office opening resulting from the death of Lynn Kohlmeyer in July 2010, according to the report, which was mailed in February.

Bajsec participated in votes approving payment of benefits that included insurance for him and his wife, the report said.

The commission ordered Bajsec to pay the borough $2,000 and the commission $1,000. He is barred from holding public office for one year.

Nanni must pay the borough $2,050 and the commission $1,000.

Nanni violated the Ethics Act when his son, Scott Nanni, performed work starting in 2007 related to the borough's website and servers, and received payment for doing so.

Council President Joe McGurk said Wednesday that he was “happy it's over.”

McGurk, who along with three other council members ran for council in 2011 while questioning those in office at the time, said there are checks and balances “that should keep this from ever happening.”

“There's also a different feel for behavior among the current council than the former group,” he said.

Bobby Cherry is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-324-1408 or rcherry@tribweb.com.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.