ShareThis Page
Hempfield to review past votes, but supervisors balk at state audit |

Hempfield to review past votes, but supervisors balk at state audit

Megan Tomasic
| Thursday, January 31, 2019 5:13 p.m.

Despite claims by one of its own, state investigators will not examine whether Hempfield supervisors have voted on issues outside the public eye — including on reaching a $125,000 union settlement agreement and other matters.

The Pennsylvania Auditor General’s Office can only audit a township’s pension funds and use of the state gas tax, said spokesman Gary Miller. Hempfield officials would have to invite the office to look into other matters, he said.

Township supervisors this week voted against that after one member of the board questioned how the group had been conducting business.

During Monday’s public meeting, Supervisor Robert Ritson listed four instances between 2016-18 where the board allegedly took action on items without the public’s knowledge – the union settlement agreement, a $4.3 million firefighter grant, an agreement with a design company for a monthly newsletter and a volunteer firefighter fund.

Ritson cited the incidents, hoping the board would agree to invite investigators from the Auditor General’s office to examine the township. His motion failed 3-2, with supervisors John Silvis, Tom Logan and Doug Weimer voting against the proposal.

“I don’t see the purpose of an audit,” Silvis said. “Why are we investigating ourselves? Why wasn’t this brought up at the time?”

Ritson said he requested the audit to determine if there were any other instances in the three-year span like the ones he cited, saying a third-party review would be more objective.

“I want to know if the township is exposed legally in any way with binding agreements that were not done within the parameters of the second-class code,” Ritson said by email.

Township Manager Jason Winters directed Scott Avolio, the township’s solicitor, to review the discussed items upon the direction of Supervisor George Reese, sitting chairman.

Ritson said he plans to wait to see what staff finds in terms of legal ramifications with past agreements. If they find any issues, Ritson said he will reopen the discussion of an audit with the board.

Chief of staff to State Sen. Kim Ward, a Hempfield Republican, Ritson served as township manager from 2002-08. He won election as supervisor in the fall of 2017 and took office in early 2018.

Teamsters Local 30

In 2017, Teamsters Local 30, a manufacturing union, filed a grievance against Hempfield, Ritson said. To settle, Hempfield officials allegedly paid the union $125,000. Ritson believes the vote took place in executive session, though he was not a member of the board at the time.

According to Melissa Melewsky, media law council at Pennsylvania NewsMedia Association, official action cannot be taken in executive session; rather, it must be done during a public meeting.

Avolio, who was not the attorney for the township on these labor matters, said he is looking into the process of the settlement.

Several members at Monday’s meeting said they recalled having a public vote, but Avolio and Winters plan on reviewing the minutes to double check.

Online minutes from 2017 cite one conversation with union members who expressed concerns over a possible misinterpretation of a contract. During the March 2017 meeting, Weimer said the concerns would be reviewed by the board. Supervisors did not publicly discuss the union again in 2017, according to meeting minutes.

If the settlement was not voted on publicly, the township can go back and publicly vote on it, Avolio said.

“The process to rectify the administrative oversight (if it exists) will be to suggest to the board to vote in February at the public meeting to ratify the execution of the settlement agreement,” he said.

SAFER grant

According to Ritson, a public vote to apply for a $4.3 million Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response grant, or SAFER, from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, did not take place. The money was granted in August 2017 and is meant to be used to improve retention within fire departments across Westmoreland County.

According to Avolio, the grant was put into motion by a former public safety director.

“He did get ahead of himself by applying for the grant and then ultimately pushing along paperwork to accept the grant by the township,” he said.

Avolio said an article announcing the money was granted to the township brought the mistake to the attention of township officials who then worked to ratify the acceptance.

Apollo Design, Community Foundation

Ritson claimed that an annual agreement with Apollo Design for a community newsletter was signed by the past and current manager without the board’s approval. Avolio said the contract is set to renew automatically if the township does not notify the company of termination, but that a renewal contract is sent out each year.

Ritson also cited an agreement between Hempfield and the Community Foundation over the creation of a separate fire services fund.

The agreement acknowledges the township as a beneficiary of a third-party charitable donation, Avolio said. This means the fund was set up independently from the township, making any contracts between the donor and the Community Foundation.

Avolio said the township was asked to list an officer who would make suggestions to the Community Foundation Board for donations.

“The township neither owns the funds nor has the ultimate authority to distribute funds,” Avolio said. “These items appear to be administrative functions that had been previously delegated to the township manager by the prior board.”

Megan Tomasic is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Megan at 724-850-1203, or via Twitter @MeganTomasic.

Megan Tomasic is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Megan at 724-850-1203, or via Twitter .

Categories: News | Westmoreland
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.