Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-001 LudwigOPINION OF THE COMMISSION Bruce M. Ludwig, Esquire Willig, Williams & Davidson 1845 Walnut Street, 24 Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 I. ISSUE: Before: Louis W. Fryman, Chair John J. Bolger, Vice Chair Donald M. McCurdy Paul M. Henry Raquel K. Bergen Nicholas A. Colafella DATE DECIDED: 3/12/09 DATE MAILED: 3/27/09 09 -001 Dear Mr. Ludwig: This Opinion is issued in response to the appeal of Honchar, Advice of Counsel 08- 591, which was issued on October 28, 2008. Whether an individual employed by the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare as an Income Maintenance Caseworker under job code 44720 would be considered a "public employee" subject to the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act ( "Ethics Act "), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq., and the Regulations of the State Ethics Commission, and in particular, the requirements for filing Statements of Financial Interests pursuant to the Ethics Act. II. FACTUAL BASIS FOR DETERMINATION: You are the legal representative of Mr. Eugene Quaglia ( "Mr. Quaglia"), who is employed with the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare ( "DPW "), Berks County Assistance Office, as an Income Maintenance Caseworker under job code 44720. You are also the legal representative of SEIU Local 668 of the Pennsylvania Social Services Union ( "SEIU Local 668 "), which is the certified collective bargaining representative for Income Maintenance Caseworkers employed by DPW. You have appealed Honchar, Advice of Counsel 08 -591, issued to James A. Honchar ( "Mr. Honchar"), Deputy Secretary for Human Resources and Management with the Governor's Office of Administration, on October 28, 2008. Ludwig, 09 -001 March 27, 2009 Page 2 The initial advisory request submitted by Mr. Honchar presented facts and commentary that were summarized in the Advice of Counsel as follows: As Deputy Secretary for Human Resources and Management with the Governor's Office of Administration ( "OA "), you request an advisory from the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission as to whether those individuals employed by the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare ( "DPW ") as Income Maintenance Caseworkers under job code 44720 are "public employees" subject to the Ethics Act and the Regulations of the State Ethics Commission. See, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1102; 51 Pa. Code § 11.1. You specifically ask whether such Income Maintenance Caseworkers are required to file Statements of Financial Interests ( "SFIs ") pursuant to the Ethics Act. A copy of the current job classification specifications for the position of Income Maintenance Caseworker (job code 44720) has been submitted and is incorporated herein by reference. It is administratively noted that the job classification specifications under job code 44720 are dated June 1, 1989. Per the job classification specifications under job code 44720, an Income Maintenance Caseworker performs professional work assessing clients' social services and employment needs, determining client eligibility for Income Maintenance Program services and making appropriate referrals for services. The specific duties and authority of an Income Maintenance Caseworker under job code 44720 include, inter alia: • Assessing clients' social services and employment needs; • Interviewing applicants to determine eligibility for financial assistance and related income maintenance programs such as, but not limited to, Cash Assistance, Medical Assistance, Food Stamps, Nursing Home Care, and Employment Referrals; • Determining eligibility for various categories of assistance based on factors such as income, personal property, real property, legally responsible relatives, and employment status; • Evaluating special needs of clients; • Authorizing grants that conform to agency requirements or making referrals to other community resources; • Re- determining eligibility through periodic review of client situations; • Determining occurrence and circumstances of overpayments and referring information to the Office of Ludwig, 09 -001 March 27, 2009 Page 3 Fraud and Abuse Investigation and Restitution for resolution; • Providing clients or their families with information on community resources for social and employment services and making appropriate referrals for services; • Assisting clients in locating employment through the Pennsylvania Employables Programs, monitoring clients in the Community Work Experience Program, and imposing sanctions as necessary; and • Representing one or more clients in the process of obtaining SSI benefits. Job classification specifications, at 1 -2. The job classification specifications state that the work of the Income Maintenance Caseworker is performed in accordance with established policies and procedures, under general supervision. Job classification specifications, at 1. Per the job classification specifications, "[s]upervision involves selective review of cases assigned to the worker," and "[r]esponsibility for determination or redetermination action rests with the worker." Id. You state that your request for an advisory is in response to Makar, Order 1383, in which the Commission determined that Robert W. Makar violated Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1104(a), when he failed to file SF's in his capacity as an Income Maintenance Caseworker with DPW. You note that in an Advice issued in 1979, specifically, Preloh, Advice 79 -563, a previous Chief Counsel of the Commission determined that an individual employed as an "Income Maintenance Worker" with DPW was not a "public employee" under a former version of the Ethics Act, Act 170 of 1978. You state that historically, OA has not required Income Maintenance Caseworkers to file SF's. You state that requiring Income Maintenance Caseworkers to file SF's would increase DPW's work in coordinating employee SFI filings to almost three times the amount required to date and could necessitate the reevaluation of the filing status for other job titles with similar duties. Honchar, Advice of Counsel 08 -591, at 1 -2. Advice of Counsel 08 -591 noted that in Metrick, Order 1037, issued in 1997, this Commission ruled, in pertinent part, that an Income Maintenance Caseworker employed by DPW was a "public employee" subject to the Ethics Act. The Advice of Counsel noted that our ruling was based upon the duties and responsibilities set forth in the job description and job classification specifications for the position of Income Maintenance Caseworker. The Advice of Counsel further noted that the job classification specifications we reviewed in Metrick are encompassed within the job classification specifications under job code 44720. The Advice of Counsel determined that our ruling in Metrick, supra, superseded Preloh, Advice 79 -563 as to the status under the Ethics Act of Income Maintenance Ludwig, 09 -001 March 27, 2009 Page 4 Caseworkers under job code 44720. The Advice of Counsel accordingly concluded that Preloh, Advice 79 -563 had no precedential effect as to Mr. Honchar's inquiry. Advice of Counsel 08 -591 determined that individuals employed by DPW as Income Maintenance Caseworkers under job code 44720 are "public employees" subject to the Ethics Act and the Regulations of this Commission, and in particular, the requirements for filing Statements of Financial Interests pursuant to the Ethics Act. The Advice determined that such individuals have the ability to take or recommend official action that would satisfy subparagraphs (2) and (5) within the statutory definition of "public employee" (respectively pertaining to "administering or monitoring grants or subsidies" and any other activity where the official action has an economic impact of greater than a de minimis nature on the interests of any person" (65 Pa.C.S. § 1102)), as well as the criteria set forth in this Commission's Regulations for determining status as a public employee, specifically at 51 Pa. Code § 11.1, "public employee," subparagraphs (i) and (ii). The Advice of Counsel specifically noted the authority of Income Maintenance Caseworkers to: determine eligibility for financial assistance and related income maintenance programs such as Cash Assistance, Medical Assistance, Food Stamps, Nursing Home Care, and Employment Referrals; make appropriate referrals for services; assist clients in locating employment through the Pennsylvania Employables Programs, monitor clients in the Community Work Experience Program, and impose sanctions as necessary; authorize grants that conform to agency requirements; re- determine eligibility through periodic review of client situations; determine occurrence and circumstances of overpayments and refer information to the Office of Fraud and Abuse Investigation and Restitution for resolution; and represent one or more clients in the process of obtaining SSI benefits. By letter dated November 25, 2008, you appealed Advice of Counsel 08 -591. You expressed your view that while you and Mr. Quaglia were not the requesters of the Advice, Mr. Quaglia is a subject of the Advice insofar as he is employed by DPW as an Income Maintenance Caseworker under job code 44720. You further expressed your view that SEIU Local 668, as the certified collective bargaining representative for Income Maintenance Caseworkers employed by DPW under job code 44720, has standing to appeal the Advice on behalf of its members. You requested that your appeal be considered a joint appeal. In your appeal letter, you asserted that while Income Maintenance Caseworker is a professional classification that plays an important role in the determination of eligibility for financial assistance, the duties are ministerial in nature. Specifically, you contended that Income Maintenance Caseworkers do not act or make decisions based upon their own personal judgment as to the desirability of the action taken, but rather, act in compliance with the mandates of legal authority. You stated that in performing their duties, Income Maintenance Caseworkers must adhere to detailed manuals /instructions issued by DPW as well as other applicable laws and codes. You stated that the fact that Income Maintenance Caseworkers work in an office and have on -site supervision must be taken into consideration in determining their status under the Ethics Act. You stated that historically, Income Maintenance Caseworkers have not been required by the Governor's Office of Administration to file Statements of Financial Interests. You stated that the job classification of Income Maintenance Caseworker has existed since at least 1989 and is closely related to a classification that predates the Ethics Act. You expressed your view that since the definition of "public employee" has not changed since the Ethics Act was first enacted, there is no reason to now impose a requirement that individuals working as Income Maintenance Caseworkers must file Statements of Financial Interests. You asserted that this matter should be guided by a repealed Regulation of this Commission, which provided that welfare caseworkers were not considered public employees under the Ethics Act. Ludwig, 09 -001 March 27, 2009 Page 5 You argued that Advice of Counsel 08 -591 is inconsistent with Preloh, Advice 79- 563. You further argued that this Commission's decision in Makar, supra, has no precedential effect because it was not based upon a litigated case, but rather, was based upon a consent agreement. You argued that this Commission's ruling in Metrick, supra, is not applicable, based upon your assertion that "[t]here, it appears that it was assumed that the respondent was a `public employee.' The actual dispute in that case appears to be over whether the employee engaged in restricted activities. It did not address the requirement of filing a statement of financial interest[s]." Ludwig letter of November 25, 2008, at 3. You requested that Advice of Counsel 08 -591 be rejected, and that this Commission determine that Income Maintenance Caseworkers are not "public employees" as defined by the Ethics Act. By letter dated January 6, 2009, you were notified of the date, time and location of the public meeting at which your request would be considered. On March 4, 2009, this Commission received your Brief and ten submitted exhibits, consisting of the following documents: 1. The initial advisory request letter of James A. Honchar, Deputy Secretary for Human Resources and Management, dated September 22, 2008; 2. The job classification specifications for the position of Income Maintenance Caseworker under job code 44720; 3. Preloh, Advice of Counsel 79 -563, issued December 19, 1979; 4. Listings of chapters contained within various DPW handbooks; 5. A portion of the DPW Cash Assistance Handbook, pertaining to "Determining Eligibility and Payment Amount "; 6. An Operations Memorandum dated September 25, 2008, from Joanne Glover, Director, Bureau of Operations, pertaining to "Expanded Categorical Eligibility for Food Stamp (FS) Households "; 7 A document entitled "560.741 Four Mandatory Utility Allowances," pertaining to shelter utility allowances impacting the amount of an applicant's income to be considered; 8. An Operations Memorandum dated April 18, 2005, from Christine M. Bowser, Director, Bureau of Operations, pertaining to "Medicaid Eligibility for Children with Disabilities in the PH -95 Eligibility Group "; 9. Chapter 355.1 of the Medical Assistance Eligibility Handbook, pertaining to "deeming" or counting the income and resources of a non - applicant when determining the Medical Assistance eligibility of the applicant; and 10. Chapter 340.1 of the Medical Assistance Eligibility Handbook, pertaining to determining the total countable resources of an applicant. Ludwig, 09 -001 March 27, 2009 Page 6 In your Brief, you stated that it is uncontested that the Income Maintenance Caseworker classification takes official action with respect to grants including financial assistance and related programs. You further stated that it is uncontested that the Income Maintenance Caseworker classification is a professional classification in which judgment must be exercised by the caseworker. However, you denied that such judgment is "nonministerial" as that term is defined by the Ethics Act. Specifically, you asserted that the Income Maintenance Caseworker does not exercise his own judgment as to the "desirability" of the action taken, but rather, "exercises judgment with respect to an application based upon detailed and extensive rules and regulations of [DPW]." Brief, at 4. You reiterated additional arguments set forth in your appeal letter. At the public meeting on March 12, 2009, you submitted an additional exhibit consisting of an Executive Board Resolution adopted in 1985, which changed the title of Income Maintenance Worker 2 to Income Maintenance Caseworker. You and Mr. Quaglia also offered commentary, which may be fairly summarized as follows. You stated that the Income Maintenance Caseworker classification includes approximately 4,500 employees throughout the Commonwealth. You acknowledged that the job of the Income Maintenance Caseworker is important, complex and professional in nature. You acknowledged that Mr. Quaglia and the other Income Maintenance Caseworkers use judgment in the exercise of their duties and make determinations that have an economic impact. However, you argued that Income Maintenance Caseworkers act in a prescribed manner in obedience to the mandate of legal authority without regard to the exercise of their own judgment as to the desirability of the action being taken, and therefore, are not "public employees" as that term is defined by the Ethics Act. You did not reference any particular definition of the term "desirability," stating that it is a "plain meaning" type of word. Mr. Quaglia testified that there are policies and procedures in place that govern the work of the Income Maintenance Caseworker. Mr. Quaglia stated that he makes decisions within such policies. Mr. Quaglia testified that there are multiple levels of supervision above Income Maintenance Caseworkers, and that the work of the Income Maintenance Caseworker is subject to review by such supervisors. Mr. Quaglia testified that generally, the work of the Income Maintenance Caseworker is done in the office, and that the determination of eligibility is done on the computer. Mr. Quaglia stated that when he does work in the field, he does so without a supervisor being present, and he brings information back to the office to make a determination of eligibility on the computer. Mr. Quaglia acknowledged that an Income Maintenance Caseworker can override the system," but stated that a supervisor is notified of the override. Mr. Quaglia acknowledged that per the job classification specifications, an Income Maintenance Caseworker evaluates and interprets data essential to making a decision on eligibility, and that the policies /procedures at Exhibit 5, page 67 expressly encourage Income Maintenance Caseworkers to be as liberal as possible in assessing what must be verified prior to authorization of assistance. Mr. Quaglia stated that Income Maintenance Caseworkers may make decisions about imposing sanctions following review with a supervisor or manager. Mr. Quaglia stated that any overpayment is referred to the Office of Inspector General. III. DISCUSSION: Ludwig, 09 -001 March 27, 2009 Page 7 It is initially noted that pursuant to Sections 1107(10) and 1107(11) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. §§ 1107(10), (11), advisories are issued to the requester based upon the facts that the requester has submitted. In issuing the advisory based upon the facts that the requester has submitted, this Commission does not engage in an independent investigation of the facts, nor does it speculate as to facts that have not been submitted. It is the burden of the requester to truthfully disclose all of the material facts relevant to the inquiry. 65 Pa.C.S. §§ 1107(10), (11). An advisory only affords a defense to the extent the requester has truthfully disclosed all of the material facts. It is further noted that Mr. Quaglia, as an Income Maintenance Caseworker under job code 44720, is a subject of Honchar, Advice of Counsel 08 -591. This advisory only addresses the conduct of Mr. Quaglia, who has authorized you to appeal Advice of Counsel 08 -591 on his behalf. As to all others, you are considered a third party without legal standing. Our review of this matter is de novo (Clarke, Opinion 04 -012; Spear, Opinion 04- 011): "De novo review entails, as the term suggests, full consideration of the case anew. The reviewing body is in effect substituted for the prior decision maker and redecides the case." D'Arciprete v. D'Arciprete, 323 Pa. Super. 430, 470 A.2d 995 (1984) (citations omitted). See also, Hayes v. Donohue Designer Kitchen, Inc., 2003 Pa. Super. 84, 818 A.2d 1287 (2003); Commonwealth v. Krut, 311 Pa. Super. 64, 457 A.2d 114 (1983); In re Audit of School District, 354 Pa. 232, 47 A.2d 292 (1946). We shall begin our analysis by noting the established principle that the Ethics Act, as remedial legislation, is to be liberally construed. Maunus v. State Ethics Commission, 518 Pa. 592, 544 A.2d 1324 (1988). The Ethics Act defines the term "public employee" as follows: § 1102. Definitions "Public employee." Any individual employed by the Commonwealth or a political subdivision who is responsible for taking or recommending official action of a nonministerial nature with regard to: (1) contracting or procurement; (2) administering or monitoring grants or subsidies; (3) planning or zoning; (4) inspecting, licensing, regulating or auditing any person; or (5) any other activity where the official action has an economic impact of greater than a de minimis nature on the interests of any person. The term shall not include individuals who are employed by this Commonwealth or any political subdivision thereof in teaching as distinguished from administrative duties. 65 Pa.C.S. § 1102. The Regulations of this Commission similarly define the term "public employee" and set forth the following additional criteria: Ludwig, 09 -001 March 27, 2009 Page 8 (ii) The following criteria will be used, in part, to determine whether an individual is within the definition of "public employe ": (A) The individual normally performs his responsibility in the field without onsite supervision. (B) The individual is the immediate supervisor of a person who normally performs his responsibility in the field without onsite supervision. (C) The individual is the supervisor of a highest level field office. (D) The individual has the authority to make final decisions. (E) The individual has the authority to forward or stop recommendations from being sent to the person or body with the authority to make final decisions. (F) The individual prepares or supervises the preparation of final recommendations. (G) The individual makes final technical recommen- dations. (H) The individual's recommendations or actions are an inherent and recurring part of his position. (1) The individual's recommendations or actions affect organizations other than his own organization. (iii) The term does not include individuals who are employed by the Commonwealth or a political subdivision of the Commonwealth in teaching as distinguished from administrative duties. (iv) Persons in the following positions are generally considered public employes: (A) Executive and special directors or assistants reporting directly to the agency head or governing body. (B) Commonwealth bureau directors, division chiefs or heads of equivalent organization elements and other governmental body department heads. (C) Staff attorneys engaged in representing the department, agency or other governmental bodies. (D) Engineers, managers and secretary- treasurers acting as managers, police chiefs, chief clerks, chief purchasing agents, grant and contract managers, administrative officers, housing and building inspectors, investigators, auditors, sewer enforcement officers and zoning officers in all governmental bodies. (E) Court administrators, assistants for fiscal affairs and deputies for the minor judiciary. (F) School superintendents, assistant superintendents, school business managers and principals. Ludwig, 09 -001 March 27, 2009 Page 9 (G) Persons who report directly to heads of executive, legislative and independent agencies, boards and commissions except clerical personnel. (v) Persons in the following positions are generally not considered public employes: (A) City clerks, other clerical staff, road masters, secretaries, police officers, maintenance workers, construction workers, equipment operators and recreation directors. (B) Law clerks, court criers, court reporters, probation officers, security guards and writ servers. (C) School teachers and clerks of the schools. 51 Pa. Code § 11.1. The following terms are relevant to your inquiry and are defined in the Ethics Act as follows: § 1102. Definitions "Ministerial action." An action that a person performs in a prescribed manner in obedience to the mandate of legal authority, without regard to or the exercise of the person's own judgment as to the desirability of the action being taken. "Nonministerial actions." An action in which the person exercises his own judgment as to the desirability of the action taken. 65 Pa. C. S. § 1102. As noted in the Advice of Counsel, status as a "public employee" subject to the Ethics Act is determined by an objective test. The objective test applies the Ethics Act's definition of the term "public employee" and the related regulatory criteria to the powers and duties of the position itself. Typically, the powers and duties of the position are established by objective sources that define the position, such as the job description, job classification specifications, and organizational chart. The objective test considers what an individual has the authority to do in a given position based upon these objective sources, rather than the variable functions that the individual may actually perform in the position. See, Phillips v. State Ethics Commission, 470 A.2d 659 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984); Eiben, Opinion 04 -002; Shienvold, Opinion 04 -001; Shearer, Opinion 03 -011. The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania has specifically considered and approved this Commission's objective test and has directed that coverage under the Ethics Act be construed broadly and that exclusions under the Ethics Act be construed narrowly. See, Phillips, supra. The Advice of Counsel correctly concluded that our ruling in Metrick, supra, superseded Preloh, Advice of Counsel 79 -563 as to the status under the Ethics Act of Income Maintenance Caseworkers under job code 44720. Contrary to your assertion, we did not "assume" in Metrick, a contested case, that the respondent, in his capacity as an Income Maintenance Caseworker, was a public employee subject to the Ethics Act; rather, we based our ruling upon an application of the objective test to the duties and responsibilities set forth in the job description and job classification specifications for the position of Income Maintenance Caseworker. See, Metrick, at 3 -4, 38. Additionally, the argument that the particular allegations against the respondent in Metrick did not pertain to Ludwig, 09 -001 March 27, 2009 Page 10 the Ethics Act's requirements regarding the filing of Statements of Financial Interests is of no consequence, as status as a public employee automatically requires the filing of Statements of Financial Interests pursuant to Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act. Our decision in Makar, supra, issued December 23, 2005, was in accord with our ruling in Metrick as to the status under the Ethics Act of Income Maintenance Caseworkers employed by DPW. We reject your contention that our decision in this matter should be guided by a repealed Regulation of this Commission or historical actions of the Governor's Office of Administration. The aforesaid judicially approved objective test is the proper means of determining Mr. Quaglia's status under the Ethics Act, based upon the current job classification specifications. In applying the objective test in the instant matter, we conclude that Mr. Quaglia, in his capacity as an Income Maintenance Caseworker with DPW under job code 44720, is a public employee subject to the Ethics Act and the Regulations of this Commission. The first portion of the statutory definition of "public employee" includes individuals with authority to take or recommend official action of a nonministerial nature. 65 Pa.C.S. § 1102; 51 Pa. Code § 11.1( "public employee "); see also, Gilliland /Reese, Opinion 05 -005. The job classification specifications under job code 44720 are an objective source defining Mr. Quaglia's position. They establish that as an Income Maintenance Caseworker with DPW, Mr. Quaglia has the authority, inter alia, to do the following: • Determine eligibility for financial assistance and related income maintenance programs such as Cash Assistance, Medical Assistance, Food Stamps, Nursing Home Care, and Employment Referrals; • Authorize grants that conform to agency requirements; • Re- determine eligibility through periodic review of client situations; • Determine occurrence and circumstances of overpayments and refer information to the Office of Fraud and Abuse Investigation and Restitution for resolution; • Make appropriate referrals for services; • Assist clients in locating employment through the Pennsylvania Employables Programs, monitor clients in the Community Work Experience Program, and impose sanctions as necessary; and • Represent one or more clients in the process of obtaining SSI benefits. Based upon the above, we find that Mr. Quaglia's authority includes responsibility for taking or recommending official action of a nonministerial nature with regard to categories (2) and (5) of the Ethics Act's definition of "public employee," specifically, "administering or monitoring grants or subsidies" and any other activity where the official action has an economic impact of greater than a de minimis nature on the interests of any person." 65 Pa.C.S. § 1102. Mr. Quaglia's authority to authorize grants that conform to agency requirements would bring him squarely within the Ethics Act's definition of "public employee." Additionally, there is no question that in determining and re- determining eligibility for financial assistance and related income maintenance programs, determining occurrence and circumstances of overpayments and making referrals regarding same, making appropriate referrals for services, and representing one or more clients in the Ludwig, 09 -001 March 27, 2009 Page 11 process of obtaining SSI benefits, Mr. Quaglia's official job duties and responsibilities would have a significant economic impact upon the interests of individuals applying for or receiving benefits from such programs as well as the interests of Pennsylvania taxpayers with regard to the expenditure of public funds relative to such programs. Cf., Spear, Opinion 04 -011. We reject your assertion that the duties of an Income Maintenance Caseworker are ministerial in nature. First, per the job classification specifications, an Income Maintenance Caseworker "fdletermines eligibility for various categories of [financial] assistance based on such factors as income, personal property, real property, legally responsible relatives and employment status" and "frle- determines eligibility through periodic review of client situations." Job Classification Specifications, at 1 -2 (emphasis added). Based upon the objective sources before us, an Income Maintenance Caseworker makes determinations in the sense of coming to a decision on an individual's eligibility for financial assistance. Second, the fact that the Income Maintenance Caseworker's determinations /actions are to be in accordance with manuals issued by DPW and other applicable laws and codes does not render such determinations /actions "ministerial," any more than a court may be characterized as taking ministerial action when it applies laws and precedents. In the context of the terms "ministerial action" and "nonministerial actions" as defined in the Ethics Act, the word "desirability" does not refer to whether the person subjectively likes the action taken. Such an interpretation would be an absurd or unreasonable result that clearly was not intended by the General Assembly (see, 1 Pa.C.S. § 1922). Rather, the common and approved usage of the term "desirability" that applies in the context of the Ethics Act's definitions of the terms "ministerial action" and "nonministerial actions" refers to the advisability or acceptability /appropriateness of an action, which may be based upon a particular viewpoint such as agency policy. See, 1 Pa. C. S. § 1903; MERRIAM - WEBSTER ONLINE DICTIONARY (2009) (definitions of "desirability," "desirable," "advisability," and "fit "). Clearly, the Income Maintenance Caseworker does exercise judgment as to whether an action is advisable or acceptable /appropriate based upon an application of DPW procedures and policies. The submitted fact that Income Maintenance Caseworkers usually do their work in an office where there is on -site supervision does not alter our conclusion that Mr. Quaglia's duties and authority as an Income Maintenance Caseworker establish his status as a "public employee" subject to the Ethics Act. Having determined that Mr. Quaglia is a public employee subject to the Ethics Act and the Regulations of this Commission, it necessarily follows that he is required to file Statements of Financial Interests pursuant to the Ethics Act. Based upon the above analysis, we deny the appeal and affirm Honchar, Advice of Counsel 08 -591. Lastly, the propriety of the proposed conduct has only been addressed under the Ethics Act. IV. CONCLUSION: Ludwig, 09 -001 March 27, 2009 Page 12 Act. The propriety of the proposed conduct has only been addressed under the Ethics Pursuant to Section 1107(10) of the Ethics Act, the person who acts in good faith on this Opinion issued to him shall not be subject to criminal or civil penalties for so acting provided the material facts are as stated in the request. This letter is a public record and will be made available as such. Finally, a party may request the Commission to reconsider its Opinion. The reconsideration request must be received at this Commission within thirty days of the mailing date of this Opinion. The party requesting reconsideration must include a detailed explanation of the reasons as to why reconsideration should be granted in conformity with 51 Pa. Code § 21.29(b). By the Commission, Louis W. Fryman Chair