Overview
Catherine Township is a rural municipality near Williamsburg in Blair County, with a population of about 800. Eight township residents approached the Watchdog in July 2024 with a number of allegations against their local government, of which these six were the most significant:
1) Poor financial management.
2) Nepotism and unwarranted influence over township policy and spending by a single family: Heather Flaig (chairman of the Catherine board of supervisors), her father Michael Fay (the township roadmaster), and his wife Elva Fay, hired as a road laborer. Michael Fay is 74 years old.
3) Improper, inadequate or unsafe maintenance of municipal roads.
4) Profligate spending on road maintenance equipment and vehicles that were rarely or never used, and not properly maintained.
5) A “junkyard” appearance at the municipal building due to long-term storage of vehicles and equipment, some of which were allegedly owned not by the municipality, but by its roadmaster, Michael Fay. This was despite the fact that the township auditor’s reports for 2022 and 2023 specifically noted that no equipment not owned by the township should be stored on municipal property.
6) The complainants also alleged that the municipal garage is disorganized and cluttered with unnecessary materials, including some of Mr. Fay’s personal possessions, rendering it useless for the storage and routine maintenance of municipal vehicles and equipment, for which the building was designed.
Initial investigation
In August 2024 the Watchdog began interviewing Catherine residents. A Watchdog volunteer drove around the township to assess the roads, reviewed the township meeting minutes, inspected the municipal building grounds, and attended the August 2024 township meeting. We found a well-kept, tidy and pleasant community, with a good number of citizens active in community affairs. As one finds in any small community, there are long-standing personal feuds and vendettas at play. There is obvious personal animosity between Mr. Fay and at least one of the complainants.
We then assessed the six principal allegations to determine whether a Watchdog records probe was appropriate:
- Township Finances. While several people expressed frustration with municipal spending, we found no indication of pilferage, theft or embezzlement. While fiscal mismanagement can and should be an issue for municipal elections, there was not enough meat in the allegation to warrant a Watchdog investigation into the township books or second-guess the township auditors. We took no further action on this matter.
- Nepotism. We found no evidence that Township Chairman Flaig had misused her authority on behalf of her father. It is common to find multiple family members staffing small municipal governments in Pennsylvania. While this can negatively affect appearances, it is not unlawful or inherently improper for a single family to play an outsized role in community governance. However, when Mr. Fay’s contract as roadmaster comes up for renewal in January 2025, the Pennsylvania Ethics Act requires that Ms. Flaig recuse herself from that vote.
- Roads. There are portions of some township roads in poor condition. However, we note that many small, underfunded municipalities in central Pennsylvania fail to adequately maintain their roads. Catherine Township road spending from the State Liquid Fuels Fund has consistently passed audits by the state Auditor General’s Office. While it is important that local roads are maintained to the highest standard possible, the Watchdog is not in a position to assess the township’s performance.
- Equipment purchases. Upon review of the township minutes, it did appear that large equipment purchases may have been made without authorization from the board of supervisors, as required by law. At least some of that equipment was never or rarely used. This warranted a closer look.
- Municipal grounds “junkyard.” The Catherine municipal building grounds are indeed blighted by several large pieces of disused road equipment. We also confirmed that some that equipment belongs to the roadmaster, not the township. This is clearly unfair to the citizenry and justifies outside scrutiny.
- Municipal garage clutter. We confirmed that the garage is disorganized, with wasted floor space and materials stored haphazardly with no shelving labels. The building is too cluttered to be used for its intended purpose, servicing and storing road equipment. Nonetheless, this is a governance issue to be assessed by the voters, not the Watchdog.
The Watchdog Right-to-Know Request
Right-to-Know requests (RTKs) are a critical transparency tool for citizens concerned about their local government. However, soliciting public records takes valuable time from local governments that are already struggling to deliver services on very tight budgets. The Watchdog uses RTKs sparingly and ethically. We narrow the scope of requests as tightly as possible. We never use RTKs to harass or punish governments or government officials.
Our Right-to-Know Request (see pdf) therefore focused entirely on records pertaining to the purchase, maintenance and insurance of road maintenance vehicles and equipment, as our initial investigation revealed appearances of impropriety. The requested equipment/vehicle records are all mandatory for the township to keep and should have been easily available.
The Township Response
Ms. Flaig served as the open records officer for the township. All told, she handled it well. She requested a 30-day extension for a good-faith records search, which is standard. She then asked for a second one-week extension, to which the Watchdog agreed. Ms. Flaig complained publicly about the request, and openly discussed ways of imposing costs on the Watchdog at a public meeting. In the end, however, her response was reasonably thorough and timely. She made no attempt to bill the Watchdog for her time, which would have been unlawful. All the records were delivered in digital format.
Watchdog Conclusions
* There is no evidence of misconduct or incompetence on the part of Heather Flaig or Elva Fay.
* Township management of road vehicles and equipment has been sloppy and wasteful. It’s reasonable to conclude that there has been an ongoing abuse of public resources. There’s no evidence that Roadmaster Fay or anyone else at the township unlawfully profited from this abuse. Nonetheless, Mr. Fay is directly responsible for the mismanagement and should be held accountable for it.
* There have apparently been road equipment purchases with no record of authorization by the board of supervisors made at a public meeting.
* There were some questionable small payments associated with a piece of equipment leased to the municipality by Roadmaster Fay, for which an explanation is required. Mr. Fay leased a John Deer backhoe to the township in 2024. The records show payments to Mr. Fay for the lease and operation of the backhoe, which is appropriate, but they also show purchases of attachments to the backhoe at township expense with no record of reimbursement. We also saw no record of the leasing contract. (see PDF “Catherine records 1”, pg 139).
* The Watchdog would suggest that Roadmaster Fay, who is 74, should not be offered another contract as roadmaster. This should not reflect poorly on his long service to the township, but he is apparently ill-equipped at present to manage road maintenance for the municipality.
* Ms. Flaig is barred by the Ethics Act from voting on the renewal of her father’s contract. In our view, if the two remaining supervisors split their vote on the renewal, it must fail.
