HomeMy WebLinkAbout369S-R SHAW
In re: Pamela Shaw, : File Docket: 10-020-P
Respondent : X-Ref: Order No. 369-S-R
: Date Decided: 10/19/10
: Date Mailed: 10/22/10
Before: Louis W. Fryman, Chair
John J. Bolger, Vice Chair
Donald M. McCurdy
Raquel K. Bergen
Nicholas A. Colafella
Mark Volk
The State Ethics Commission received a request for reconsideration on August 6,
2010, with respect to Order No. 369-S issued on July 9, 2010. Pursuant to Section 21.29
of the Regulations of the Commission, the discretion of the State Ethics Commission to
grant reconsideration is properly invoked as follows:
§ 21.29. Finality; reconsideration.
(b) Any party may ask the Commission to reconsider an order or
opinion within 30 days of service of the order or opinion. The requestor shall
present a detailed explanation setting forth the reason why the order or
opinion should be reconsidered.
(c) A request for reconsideration filed with the Commission will
delay the public release of an order, but will not suspend the final order
unless reconsideration is granted by the Commission.
(d) A request for reconsideration may include a request for a
hearing before the Commission.
(e) Reconsideration may be granted at the discretion of the
Commission if:
(1) A material error of law has been made.
(2) A material error of fact has been made.
(3) New facts or evidence are provided which would lead to
reversal or modification of the order or opinion and if these could not be or
were not discovered by the exercise of due diligence.
51 Pa. Code § 21.29(b), (c), (d), (e).
This adjudication of the Commission is hereby issued which sets forth the
Discussion and Reconsideration Order.
Shaw, 10-020-P
Page 2
This Reconsideration Order as with Order No. 369-S is final and is a public
document.
DISCUSSION
On July 9, 2010, we issued Shaw, Order No. 369-S, following our review of the
record in this case.
This case involves civil penalty proceedings against Pamela Shaw (“Shaw”), a
former Administrative Officer 4 for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of
Labor and Industry (“Department of Labor and Industry”), who failed to file a complete and
accurate Statement of Financial Interests (“SFI”) for calendar year 2008 with the
Department of Labor and Industry. The Investigative Division instituted formal proceedings
against Shaw by filing with the State Ethics Commission and serving upon Shaw a Petition
for Civil Penalties. An Order to Show Cause was issued to Shaw. Shaw did not file an
answer to the Order to Show Cause or request a hearing, such that the factual averments
of the Petition for Civil Penalties were deemed admitted and a hearing was waived.
On July 9, 2010, we issued Shaw, Order No. 369-S. We determined that Shaw, as
a former Administrative Officer 4 for the Department of Labor and Industry, failed to comply
with Section 1104(a) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act (“Ethics Act”), 65
Pa.C.S. § 1104(a), when she failed to file a complete and accurate SFI for calendar year
2008 with the Department of Labor and Industry. We ordered Shaw to pay one civil
penalty at the rate of $25.00 per day for each day herSFI for calendar year 2008 has
remained delinquent/deficient, for a total civil penalty of $250.00.
Following the issuance of Order No. 369-S, this Commission received on August 6,
2010, Shaw’s Request for Reconsideration.
In the Request for Reconsideration, Shaw claims that, as a person who is blind, she
made repeated requests to staff of the State Ethics Commission for accommodations in
order to comply with the law if her SFI form for calendar year 2008 could not be located.
Specifically, Shaw claims: (1) that she asked that correspondence be sent to her in Braille,
but she was told that this was not possible; (2) that she then asked for communications to
be sent to her in electronic format but most communications were sent to her in regular
print, which delayed her from ascertaining the contents of the correspondence until she
could take the printed material to a local library to be read to her by a scanner/reader; (3)
that upon being notified that her SFI form for calendar year 2008 could not be found, she
asked Commission staff for a location in the City of Philadelphia where she could go for
assistance to fill out the SFI form, but she never received a response; and (4) that she
should not have to pay someone to assist her with completing an SFI for calendar year
2008. Shaw further claims that her unemployment compensation benefits have been
exhausted, that she is dependent on a small state pension and Social Security benefits,
and that the imposition of a civil penalty in the amount of $250.00 would place a financial
hardship upon her.
The Investigative Division has filed an Answer and New Matter opposing Shaw’s
Request for Reconsideration, contending: (1) that the State Ethics Commission does not
have SFI forms printed in Braille; (2) that Shaw made only one request for accommodation,
and in response to such request, on October 13, 2009, the State Ethics Commission
contacted Tami Woods (“Woods”), an employee at the Human Resources Department of
the Department of Labor and Industry; (3) that on October 13, 2009, Woods assisted Shaw
by filling out an SFI form for calendar year 2008 for Shaw and sending such form to Shaw
in electronic format for Shaw to sign; (4) that by email sent October 14, 2009, Woods
asked Shaw how Shaw was making out with the SFI form; (5) that in telephone
conversations with the Investigative Division on December 22, 2009, February 17, 2010,
and March 24, 2010, Shaw stated that she would provide the State Ethics Commission with
Shaw, 10-020-P
Page 3
a signed and dated copy of her SFI for calendar year 2008, but Shaw failed to do so; (6)
that the Investigative Division attempted to resolve this matter without instituting civil
penalty proceedings and that more than six months passed from when Shaw first
contacted the State Ethics Commission regarding this matter and when the Investigative
Division instituted civil penalty proceedings (on April 26, 2010); and (7) that Shaw has
failed to meet the regulatory criteria for the exercise of the Commission’s discretion to
grant reconsideration.
In considering whether to grant reconsideration, we note that Shaw was clearly
given an opportunity to file an answer to the Order to Show Cause, request a hearing, and
otherwise participate in this case. She chose to do nothing.
Order No. 369-S was decided based upon the record in this case, which included
the factual averments of the Petition for Civil Penalties, deemed admitted by Shaw. Any
arguments by which Shaw now seeks to advance new facts or evidence will be legally
insufficient to justify reconsideration unless those facts could not be or were not
discovered by the exercise of due diligence. Cf., Whitfield, Order 052-S-R.
We conclude that the Request for Reconsideration fails to meet the requisite
standard for reconsideration. Shaw has not alleged or established that a material error of
law has occurred. No material error of fact has been established. No new facts or
evidence has been provided which could not be or was not discovered by the exercise of
due diligence and that would lead to a reversal or modification of Order No. 369-S. We
parenthetically note that Shaw’s claims regarding her financial situation do not meet the
criteria for granting reconsideration. Cf., Whitfield, supra.
Shaw has failed to meet her burden of proof to establish any need for
reconsideration. The Request for Reconsideration is denied.
In Re: Pamela Shaw, : File Docket: 10-020-P
Respondent : Date Decided: 10/19/10
: Date Mailed: 10/22/10
RECONSIDERATION ORDER NO. 369-S-R
1. The Request for Reconsideration of Shaw, Order No. 369-S is denied.
BY THE COMMISSION,
Louis W. Fryman, Chair