Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout886In Re: Royce Kline STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 File Docket: 92- 043 -C2 Date Decided: May 6, 1993 Date Mailed: May 11, 1993 Before: James M. Howley, Chair Daneen E. Reese, Vice Chair Roy W. Wilt Austin M. Lee Allan M. Kluger The State Ethics Commission received a complaint regarding a possible violation of the State Ethics Act, Act 9 of 1989, 65 P.S. §401 et seq. Written notice, of the specific allegation(s) was served at the commencement of the investigation. A Findings Report was issued and served, upon completion of the investigation, which constituted the Complaint by the Investigation Division. An Answer was filed and a hearing was waived. A Consent Order was submitted by the parties to the Commission for consideration which was subsequently approved. This adjudication of the Commission is hereby issued which sets forth the individual Allegations, Findings of Fact, Discussion, Conclusions of Law and Order. This adjudication is final and will be made available as a public document fifteen days after issuance. However, reconsideration may be requested which will defer public release of this adjudication pending action on the request by the Commission. A request for reconsideration, however, does not affect the finality of this adjudication. A reconsideration request must be received at this Commission within fifteen days of issuance and must include a detailed explanation of the reasons as to why reconsideration should be granted in conformity with 51 Pa. Code §2.38. The files in this case will remain confidential in accordance with Act 9 of 1989, 65 P.S. §408(h) during the fifteen day period and no one unless the right to challenge this Order is waived, may violate confidentiality by releasing, discussing or circulating this Order. However, confidentiality does not preclude discussing this case with an attorney at law. Any person who violates confidentiality of the Ethics Act is guilty of a misdemeanor subject to a fine of not more than $1,000 or imprisonment for not more than one year, 65 P.S. §409(e). Kline, 92- 043 -C2 Page 2 I. ALLEGATION: That Royce Kline, a Supervisor for Mifflin Township, Columbia County, violated the following provisions of the State Ethics Act, Act 9 of 1989, when he used the authority of his position to cast the deciding vote appointing his son as Township Zoning and Code Enforcement Officer. II. FINDINGS: Section 3. Restricted Activities (a) No public official or public employee shall engage in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest. 65 P.S. §403(a). Section 2. Definitions "Conflict" or "conflict of interest." Use by a public official or public employee of the authority of his office or employment or any confidential information received through his holding public office or employment for the private pecuniary benefit of himself, a member of his immediate family or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. "Conflict" or "conflict of interest" does not include an action having a de minimis economic impact or which affects to the same degree a class consisting of the general public or a subclass consisting of an industry, occupation or other group which includes the public official or public employee, a member of his immediate family or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. 65 P.S. §402. 1. Royce Kline has served as a Mifflin Township Supervisor from 1982 to present. a. Kline has also served as Township Roadmaster from 1982 to the present. b. He served as chairman of the Township Board of Supervisors for 1991 and 1992. 2. Ronald Kline, son of Royce Kline, has served as Township Zoning and Code Enforcement Officer from January, 1991, t� the present. Kline, 92- 043 -C2 Page 3 a. He served as Zoning Officer during 1990. b. He served as Zoning Officer and member of the Planning Commission during 1989. c. Ronald Kline is married and maintains a separate residence from that of his father. 3. Township minutes reflect that the following pertinent actions were taken by the supervisors with regard to Ronald Kline's appointments. January 7, 1991 January 6, 1992 Supervisor Yachimowski made a motion that Ronald Kline be reappointed Zoning and Code Enforcement Officer. Supervisor Brown seconded the motion. All voted yes. Minutes reflect Supervisor Royce Kline in attendance. Supervisor Yachimowski made a motion that Ronald Kline continue as Zoning and Code Enforcement Officer. Supervisor Kline seconded the motion. A vote was taken as follows: Supervisor Brown: Abstained Supervisor Kline: Yes Supervisor Yachimowski: Yes Supervisor Kline seconded the motion after one was not made. He advised that Ronald Kline was his son but believed he was required to vote on the matter due to Supervisor Brown's abstention. 4. Minutes of the reorganization meetings of the Mifflin Township Supervisors for 1989 and 1990 confirm that Royce Kline abstained from participating in the appointment of his son, Ronald Kline, to the position of Zoning Officer. a. The appointments were approved by 2 to 9 votes. b. Royce Kline also abstained on setting of the compensation for Ronald Kline. 5. Payroll records disclosed that the township made the following payments to Ronald Kline for his services as Zoning and Codes Enforcement Officer after January 1, 1992. Kline, 92- 043 -C2 Page 4 Check No. Date Amount 12940 01/06/92 $ 44.13 12985 02/10/92 141.07 13019 03/10/92 111.15 13053 04/15/92 391.59 13083 05/18/92 273.43 13118 06/08/92 289.32 13155 07/14/92 89.98 13182 08/11/92 119.49 13215 09/15/92 86.75 13254 10/15/92 177.90 13294 11/16/92 234.53 13342 12/15/92 $ 113.30 TOTAL $ 2,073.00 6. Compensation paid to Ronald Kline consisted of 100% of fees collected and $50.00 a month salary. Total salary paid from township funds was $600. a. Training and court compensation was set at $50.00 a day and $35.00 for a half day. b. All training required approval by the township supervisors. c. Mileage reimbursement for training was set at $.20 per mile. 7. No opinion was sought from the Township Solicitor prior to the vote to reappoint Ronald Kline as Zoning and Codes Enforcement Officer. 8. Sometime after the January 6, 1992 meeting, the board of supervisors requested an opinion from the Township Solicitor as to whether or not Ronald Kline could serve as Zoning Officer while his father was on the Board of Supervisors. a. The supervisors made no mention to the solicitor that Royce Kline participated in the motion and voted on his son's appointment. b. The supervisors made the request due to a township resident complaining about the appointment of Ronald Kline as Zoning and Codes Enforcement Officer. 9. The Township Solicitor did not give an advisory opinion since the vote had already occurred. 10. Royce Kline contends his reason, for seconding and voting on the motion appointing his son Zoning and Code Enforcement, was Kline, 92- 043 -C2 Page 5 that no other person wanted the appointment and that his son did a good job in the past. He also believed that he was required as a matter of law to vote on matters of this type. III. DISCUSSION: As a Supervisor for Mifflin Township in Columbia County, Pennsylvania, Royce Kline, hereinafter Kline, is a public official as that term is defined under Act 9 of 1989. 65 P.S. §402. As such, his conduct is subject to the provisions of the Ethics Law and the restrictions therein are applicable to him. Initially, it is noted that Section 9 of Act 9 of June 26, 1989 provides, in part, as follows: "This amendatory act shall not apply to violations committed prior to the effective date of this act, and causes of action initiated for such violations shall be governed by the prior law, which is continued in effect for that purpose as if this act were not in force. For the purposes of this section, a violation was committed prior to the effective date of this act if any elements of the violation occurred prior thereto." Since the occurrences in this case transpired after the effective date of Act 9 (June 26, 1989), we must apply the provisions of Act 9 to determine whether the Ethics Act was violated. Under Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 quoted above, a public official /employee shall not engage in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest. The issue before us is whether Kline as a Mifflin Township Supervisor violated Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 regarding his alleged use of the authority of office to cast the deciding vote to appoint his son to the position of Township Zoning and Code Enforcement Officer. Factually, Kline has served as Mifflin Township Supervisor from 1982 to the present time. His son, Ronald Kline, has served as Township Zoning and Code Enforcement Officer from January, 1991 to the present. The minutes for the Township Board of Supervisors for the January 7, 1991 meeting reflect that all Supervisors, with Kline in attendance, voted in favor of a motion to reappoint Ronald Kline as Zoning and Code Enforcement Officer. At the January 6, 1992 public meeting of the Board, Kline seconded a motion and voted to continue his son, Ronald, as Zoning and Code Enforcement Officer. Kline stated that he believed he was required to vote on Kline, 92- 043 -C2 Page 6 the matter because one Supervisor abstained. (Fact Finding 3). However, in 1989 and 1990, Kline did abstain from participating as to the appointment of his son to the position of Zoning Officer and also abstained on setting the salary for his son's position. (Fact Finding 4). Ronald Kline did receive compensation for serving as Zoning and Code Enforcement Officer. (Fact Findings 5, 6). The Township Solicitor was not consulted prior to the vote to appoint Ronald Kline and when he was approached by the Board to opine regarding the propriety of Ronald Kline serving as Zoning and Code Enforcement Officer while his father was on the Board of Supervisors, the Solicitor declined to do so given that the vote had already occurred. Lastly, Kline asserts that he voted in favor of the motion to appoint his son because no other person wanted the appointment, his son did a good job in the past and he believed that he was required to vote. In applying the provisions of Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 quoted above, we find a technical violation as to Kline's actions. There was a use of authority of office on the part of Kline by seconding the motion and voting to appoint his son. See, Juliante, Order 809. In addition, the use of authority of office of resulted in a private pecuniary benefit consisting of the salary that Kline's son Ronald received by serving as Zoning and Code Enforcement Officer. Lastly, the private pecuniary benefit went to a member of Kline's immediate family. The term immediate family is defined under the Ethics Law as follows: Section 2. Definitions "Immediate family." A parent, spouse, child, brother or sister. 65 P.S. S402. Thus, since Ronald is Kline's son, it is clear that the private pecuniary benefit went to a member of Kline's immediate family. Hence, the actions of Kline in this case in seconding and voting to appoint his son to a compensated position with the Township contravened Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989. Our decision in this matter is consonant with Obernier, Order 852, wherein we found that a township supervisor violated Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 when he cast the deciding vote to appoint his wife, a member of his immediate family, to the compensated position of township tax collector. Kline is reminded that public office is a public trust and that in the future his actions must conform with the Ethics Law. In particular, in future situations where a conflict arises, Kline must abstain from participation and voting, orally disclose his abstention together with the reasons for his abstention and file a written memorandum to that effect with the secretary recording the minutes as per Section 3(j) of Act 9 of 1989. 65 P.S. S403(j). Kline, 92- 043 -C2 Page 7 Based upon the totality of facts and circumstances, we will take no further action. IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: 1. Royce Kline as a Mifflin Township Supervisor is a public official subject to the provisions of Act 9 of 1989. 2. A technical violation of Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 occurred when Kline used the authority of office to second a motion and vote to appoint his son to the compensated position of Township Zoning and Code Enforcement Officer. In Re: Royce Kline ORDER NO. 886 File Docket: 92- 043 -C2 Date Decided: May 6, 1993. Date Mailed: May 11, 1993 1. A technical violation of Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 occurred when Royce Kline, as a Mifflin Township Supervisor, used the authority of office to second a motion and vote to appoint his son to the compensated position of Township Zoning and Code Enforcement Officer. 2. Based upon the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, we will take no further action. BY THE COMMISSION, JAMES M. HOWLEY,