Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout375S-R Godshalk In Re: Sherma Godshalk, : File Docket: 10-026-P Respondent : X-Ref: Order No. 375-S-R : Date Decided: 3/3/11 : Date Mailed: 3/4/11 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 November 22, 2010, with respect to Order No. 375-S issued on October 22, 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. Godshalk, 10-026-P Page 2 This Reconsideration Order as with Order No. 375-S is final and is a public document. DISCUSSION On October 22, 2010, we issued Godshalk, Order No. 375-S, following our review of the record in this case. This case involves civil penalty proceedings against Sherma Godshalk (“Godshalk”), a Council Member for Portland Borough, who filed deficient Statements of Financial Interests (“SFIs”) for calendar years 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008 with Portland Borough. The Investigative Division instituted formal proceedings against Godshalk by filing with the State Ethics Commission and serving upon Godshalk a Petition for Civil Penalties. An Order to Show Cause was issued to Godshalk. Godshalk 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 October 22, 2010, we issued Godshalk, Order No. 375-S. We determined that Godshalk, as a Council Member for Portland Borough, failed to comply with Sections 1104(a) and 1105 of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act (“Ethics Act”), 65 Pa.C.S. §§ 1104(a), 1105, when she filed deficient SFIs for calendar years 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008 with Portland Borough. We ordered Godshalk to pay four maximum civil penalties, each at the rate of $25.00 per day, for each day her SFIs for calendar years 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008 had remained deficient, for total civil penalty liability of $1,000.00. We further ordered Ms. Godshalk to file complete and accurate SFIs for calendar years 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008 with Portland Borough by no later than the thirtieth day after the mailing date of our Order, with a copy of each such filing forwarded to this Commission for compliance verification purposes. Following the issuance of Order No. 375-S, this Commission received on November 22, 2010, Godshalk’s Request for Reconsideration. On November 23, 2010, we received copies of Godshalk’s amended SFIs for calendar years 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008. In the Request for Reconsideration, Godshalk claims: (1) that she does not receive any monetary compensation for serving as a Council Member for Portland Borough; (2) that the only monetary compensation she did not disclose on her SFIs was funds in the amount of $450.00 per month that she received from an individual who lives in the upstairs of Godshalk’s house; and (3) that the aforesaid funds were payment for expenses and not rent and that she did not consider such funds to be income. Godshalk further claims that she did not respond earlier to the proceedings against her because she was one of three caretakers for a terminally ill relative and because of personal medical reasons. The Investigative Division has filed an Answer opposing Godshalk’s Request for Reconsideration, contending: (1) that Godshalk is the owner/landlord of a separate rental unit attached to or maintained within a structure located at 623 Washington Street, Portland, Pennsylvania; (2) that in or about 2009, Godshalk submitted to the Northampton County Department of Community and Economic Development an application for grant funding for sewage tap-in costs; (3) that Godshalk sought funding in her name for the address of 623B Washington Street and identified such address as “Not owner occupied”; (4) that Godshalk filed the aforesaid application with the knowledge that “tenant’s income is grounds for grant eligibility rather than the landlord’s income”; (5) that Godshalk received rental income from an individual who resides at 623B Washington Street, Portland, Pennsylvania; (6) that Godshalk failed to disclose the source of such rental income on her SFIs; and (7) that Godshalk has failed to meet the regulatory criteria for the exercise of the Commission’s discretion to grant reconsideration. Godshalk, 10-026-P Page 3 In considering whether to grant reconsideration, we note that Godshalk 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. 375-S was decided based upon the record in this case, which included the factual averments of the Petition for Civil Penalties, deemed admitted by Godshalk. Any arguments by which Godshalk 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. Godshalk 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. 375-S. Godshalk has failed to meet her burden of proof to establish any need for reconsideration. The Request for Reconsideration is denied. In Re: Sherma Godshalk, : File Docket: 10-026-P Respondent : Date Decided: 3/3/11 : Date Mailed: 3/4/11 RECONSIDERATION ORDER NO. 375-S-R 1. The Request for Reconsideration of Godshalk, Order No. 375-S is denied. BY THE COMMISSION, Louis W. Fryman, Chair