Nov 28, 2022 5 min read

The Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission recently returned results from a preliminary inquiry into a Donora council member, finding no grounds to continue investigation.

The commission dismissed complaints that Councilwoman Cindy Brice used her position on council to financially enrich herself by lobbying for raises and holiday pay for her husband, former police superintendent Jim Brice. The commission also dismissed complaints that Cindy Brice used her position to repeal a borough ordinance that placed an age limit on the superintendent position.

The first complaint stems from council action during summer 2021, when members voted to reinstate the police chief position in the borough. The new position

ETHICS • A2 FROM A1 would operate as the highest-ranking officer within the borough’s police union and would come with a pay raise. Council initially appointed Officer Michael Parry to fill the role of acting chief. However, the contract between the police union and the borough dictated that all officer promotions in the borough would be based on seniority. The union protested Parry’s lack of seniority and in October 2021, council voted to rescind his promotion, appointing senior officer Neal Rands as permanent police chief.

The promotion came with a $2.63-per-hour pay increase and in January 2022, the new chief additionally received a step increase of 60 cents per hour, as determined by the bargaining agreement.

During this time, Jim Brice oversaw the department as police superintendent, a nonunion position. Pennsylvania’s Nonunion Police Officer Compensation and Benefits Law states that a superintendent of police “shall receive not less than the same dollar increase including fringe benefits, excluding overtime and festive holiday pay, as received by the highest-ranking police officer participating in the bargaining unit.”

However, the superintendent received no pay increase following the promotions and in May 2022, he filed a lawsuit against the borough, seeking relief that matches pay accrued from the hourly rate increase given to Parry and Rands as well as additional injunctive relief.

Cindy Brice had spoken at council meetings about her husband’s situation, advocating that council increase his rate in tandem with subordinate officer promotions. Evidence of her requests was brought to the state ethics board out of fear she may have attempted to enrich herself through her husband.

However, the commission found the councilwoman hadn’t committed any wrongdoing, as council didn’t act on any of her requests.

“We did not find any evidence that (Jim Brice) received a private pecuniary gain, which is a necessary element of a violation of the conflict of interest provision of the Ethics Act,” the letter from the commission read.

The commission also did not find Cindy Brice committed any wrongdoing regarding her actions surrounding the borough’s repeal of Ordinance 1181, which had set the age limit for borough superintendent at 65 years old.

In May and June 2020, the borough voted twice to repeal the ordinance to retain then-superintendent Jim Brice. The repeal worked retroactively, as Jim Brice had turned 65 in August the previous year.

The action to retain Brice came from strong pressure from borough residents to keep the superintendent, who had held the position for almost 40 years. Some council members at the time, including current Mayor Don Pavelko and current councilwoman Jane Ackerman, also expressed concern that the ordinance discriminated against age.

In the May vote, Cindy Brice voted to repeal the ordinance. However, because council offered no substantive replacement of the ordinance, the action was virtually moot.

In the June vote, Cindy Brice abstained from voting on the substantive ordinance repeal, as she was guided by the borough solicitor to avoid a conflict of interest. This vote ultimately repealed the ordinance.

The ethics commission found that because the outcome of the first vote was negligible, and Cindy Brice abstained from the substantive repeal vote in June, she had not violated any ethics codes.

“Based on the above facts, the preliminary investigation is terminated,” the letter read.

While the letter refuted any claim of wrongdoing, the commission urged the councilwoman to use discretion when it comes to voting on matters involving her husband.

“We urge you to avoid even the appearance of impropriety and abstain as to all matters in which you may have a conflict of interest,” it read.

Cindy Brice said she was blindsided by the inquiry, only learning of it upon receiving the Ethics Committee letter vindicating her.

She said she believes that the complaints against her show how other council members continue to work against her and her family.

“I was never talked to, never approached, nothing,” she said. “This is just another part of the harassment by members of council, who have continuously come after me, my husband and my family. It’s unbelievable how low these people are.”

Council President Mike McDowell declined to comment directly on the letter or the injury, but expressed his desire for cooperation in the future.

“Hopefully it smooths things out a little now,” he said. “I’m looking at everyone to be on their best behavior. It’s like going to class — you gotta act right.” Councilman Joe Greco, who notoriously bumps heads with Cindy Brice over council issues, said he thinks the commission’s final advice was appropriate.

“She’s been dancing through raindrops,” he said. “I think the commission gave her a slap on the wrist.”