By MARCIE SCHELLHAMMER

marcie@bradfordera.com

HARRISBURG Former Otto Township supervisor Eric Barton has landed in hot water with the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission, and has to pay back more than $3,600.

A final adjudication in the case against Barton was issued Tuesday, a 48-page report detailing how he used his position to unilaterally fire an employee to hire his brother; to use township equipment for personal gain; to vote himself into a paid position on the township’s sanitary authority board; and to vote on the budget, which approved his own raise.

Barton also failed to file statements of financial interest for the years 201922, the report noted.

Barton served as township supervisor from Jan. 7, 2019, to Jan. 6, 2020, and from July 8, 2020, to May 15, 2023, and as chairman from Jan. 4, 2021, to Jan. 1, 2023. He served on the township’s sanitary authority board from Nov. 5, 2005, to May 15, 2023, and as first vice chairman from 2007 to 2016, and from 2022 to May 15, 2023.

He was employed part time as the treatment operator by the sanitary authority from March 20, 2006, to March 19, 2023.

As a supervisor, Barton was provided with a packet of information prior to the monthly township meetings. The packet includes the treasurer’s report, with payroll for employees, includ ing the sanitary authority’s workers. Checks require signatures from two supervisors. Not only did Barton approve and sign checks for himself, but he also approved and signed checks for his brother, the report indicated.

The township’s road crew in 2019 was made up of supervisor Mark Palmer, Scott Bell and Jeremy DeLong, whose job also included limited part-time hours at the sanitary plant. In October 2019, Palmer resigned from the road crew; Barton was appointed temporary roadmaster. DeLong was moved into the position, where he served for nine months before Barton demoted him and placed Eric himself back in Barton the roadmaster position. Without official action of the board, and at times without the knowledge of the other supervisors, Barton eventually fired DeLong and hired his brother for the position. Frank Barton did not have a CDL, which would have been required for most of the township equipment, but still was hired.

In violation of the ‘immediate family member’ section of the ethics rules, Eric Barton went through the process of hiring his brother, approving his hours and signing his paychecks.

Eric Barton has been employed by Lafayette Township Sanitary Authority as a part-time plant operator since 2017. Without approval of the other Otto Township supervisors, Barton used township equipment for his job at Lafayette

Ethics… page A-8 Township, realizing a financial gain of $313.08, the report noted.

The Ethics Commission stated that Barton used his position as a supervisor to appoint himself to a paid position on the sanitary authority board. He seconded the motion and voted in favor of it, receiving a total of $1,351.50 in credits to his personal sewage account between Jan. 1, 2021 and May 15, 2023.

The commission noted Barton voted on annual authority budgets, approving wage increases for himself for a benefit of $2,295 in wage increases. He also signed 103 of his 104 payroll checks as a township signatory.

As a supervisor, Barton was paid $100 a month by the township. However, under the Ethics Act, he was not permitted to receive compensation from the township when he was not filing statements of financial interest. His total gain, including the steps taken in violation of the Ethics Act, was $7,859.58, the report stated.

Barton entered a consent agreement with the Ethics Commission, with the following allegations included: Hiring his brother, participating in the vote to place himself in a paid position with the sanitary authority, and voting to approve the budget when his own raise was included. The remaining counts were not prosecuted in exchange for the agreement.

Barton agreed to pay $3,646.50 in settlement of the matter within six months, to complete and file statements of financial interest for the years 2019-2022, and to not accept any compensation from Otto Township as a reimbursement of the amount paid in the agreement. Compliance with the conditions would result in the end of the ethics case, according to the report.

All of the information in the complaint was forwarded to the state attorney general’s office for consideration of whether prosecution was called for, the report noted.