A former Western Westmoreland Municipal Authority board member will get a chance to challenge allegations against him.

Robert Eathorne has been charged with violating provisions of the state Public Official and Employee Ethics Act by the Pennsylvania Ethics Commission because he is accused of abusing the entity's travel expense policy.

On Nov. 7, state Commonwealth Court Judges Dan Pellegrini, Rochelle S. Friedman and Mary Hanna Leavitt set aside an Ethics Commission order that Mr. Eathorne, of Manor, pay treble penalties totaling $64,476.

The decision, signed by Judge Pellegrini, vacated the order and remanded the matter to the Ethics Commission to accept Mr. Eathorne's answer to the findings of its Investigative Division and to hold an administrative hearing on its merits.

"Because the commission had discretion to extend the filing deadline for good cause, and good cause was shown, we vacate and remand the commission's decision so that it can hold an administrative hearing," Judge Pellegrini wrote.

"Certainly I'm happy that the judges feel I should not be denied my right to defend myself against these allegations," Mr. Eathorne said. "My name and reputation have been besmirched. I want to clear my name."

According to a report published in the commission's second quarter newsletter of 2008, the agency determined that Mr. Eathorne "failed to timely file [an] answer to Investigation Division's findings report."

As a result, the report said, "The commission issued its ruling based on admitted facts."

Mr. Eathorne -- Manor's representative on the six-municipality authority board from July 1996 until his resignation in December 2006 -- said his expenses were legitimate. He was serving as authority board treasurer when he resigned.

Based on the date Mr. Eathorne received the Investigation Division's findings, he was required to file an answer on or before Dec. 3, 2007.

The Ethics Commission denied Mr. Eathorne's answer because his counsel, attorney Ron Carnevali, filed a day late.

The summary of the appellate court decision notes that the commission chief counsel, after receiving a response from Mr. Eathorne, telephoned and sent a letter to Mr. Carnevali, of Johnstown, dated Dec. 4, 2007.

The letter stated he had failed to timely file an answer to the investigative complaint. It further advised, per the Ethics Act 65 and commission regulations, he has agreed to the findings in the investigative complaint and had waived a hearing.

In response to that letter, Mr. Eathorne, via fax, filed an answer Dec. 4.

On Dec. 5, Mr. Eathorne filed an application for permission to file an answer to the investigative complaint, alleging that it was issued on Nov. 2, 2007, and received by him three days later; was advised that the answer was due on or before Dec. 3, but as a result of an administrative error, counsel had inadvertently calculated the date to file as Dec. 5.