Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout84-561 FerraroR. Edward Ferraro, Esquire 690 Main Street Brockway, Pennsylvania 15824 Dear Mr. Ferraro: STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PA 17120 TELEPHONE: (717) 783 -1610 April 30, 1984 ADVICE OF COUNSEL RE: Life Insurance Coverage, Second -Class Township 84 -561 This responds to your letter of March 27, 1984, in which you requested Advice from the State Ethics Commission. Issue: You ask whether certain supervisors who may or may not be workers or employees of the Township are entitled to participate in certain life insurance programs maintained and paid for by the Township. Facts: You present a question as solicitor for a Township. In order to address your question we will assume that the Township in question is a Township of the second -class which is governed by and subject to the provisions of the Second -Class Township Code, Act of May 1, 1933, P.L. 101, as amended, 53 P.S. 65101 - 67605. You present several factual questions to us. The first is whether an elected supervisor, who is also appointed as one of the workers for the Township who is paid an hourly rate for road work which he does, in fact, perform may purchase a life insurance policy on his life, as a fringe benefit. We also assume, for purposes of this response that the life insurance policy you describe is basically a group policy in which other workers or employees of the Township participate. You note that the premiums for such a policy would be paid by the Township but that a member of the supervisor- worker's family would be designated as the beneficiary on the policy. For purposes of this Advice, we will refer to the individual supervisor in this category as the "Supervisor- worker." Next, you ask whether a Township Supervisor who is not appointed as a worker or laborer in the Township may purchase an insurance policy on his life, naming a member of his family as beneficiary as opposed to the Township. Again, in this question we will assume that the premiums associated with such a policy would be paid by the Township. In an effort to be clear in our response, we will refer to the Township supervisor in this category as the "non- working Supervisor." R. Edward Ferraro, Esquire April 30, 1984 Page 2 Finally, you ask whether there are any particular minimum number of hours that must be worked in order to be classified as a "employee" of the Township where a supervisor is involved. Stated differently, you indicate that there is one supervisor who does roadwork for the Township on an emergency basis who might earn approximately $1,000 per year and another supervisor who might work as much as 1,000 to 1,200 hours per year as an employee of the Township doing Township work. Discussion: We must initially indicate that the jurisdiction of the Ethics Commission is strictly limited to interpretations of the Ethics Act and the propriety of conduct under that Act. Accordingly, we have no jurisdiction that would allow us to provide an opinion under the Second -Class Township Code as to what may or may not be appropriately considered as the minimum number of hours an individual supervisor must work in order to be classified as an "employee" of the Township. This question and the answer thereto appears to be one which is primarily answerable under the provisions of the Second -Class Township Code, the ordinances of the Township, the work rules or practices of the Township, or sources other than the Ethics Act. Accordingly, there is no opinion of the Ethics Commission which would provide a basis for rendering an opinion or an advice with respect to this question. However, with respect to your other questions, the Ethics Commission has rendered an Opinion which provides precedent for responding to your inquiry. Specifically, in its Opinion in Krane, 84 -001, the Ethics Commission indicated that insofar as a supervisor is not appointed as or serving as the Township roadmaster, superintendent, laborer or secretary /treasurer pursuant to the provisions of the Second -Class Township Code, 53 P.S. 65514 and 65515 respectively, such a supervisor could not use his public office to obtain or have the Township pay the premiums for group life insurance coverage. However, the Supervisor - worker who may otherwise be eligible for life insurance policy - coverage as a fringe benefit similar to that available and provided to other Township workers which would, we assume, be properly provided for and approved as set forth in the Second -Class Township Code, would not be affected by the ruling in Krane. This supervisor - worker could participate in this insurance program without violating the Ethics Act, if such participation is otherwise properly approved. Thus, the non - working Supervisor in your factual situation would, similar to the supervisor in Krane, be required by Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act to refrain from using his public office to obtain or have the Township pay the premiums for this life insurance coverage where a member of his family is named as a beneficiary because these payments are not clearly authorized by law. In this conclusion we refer you to and incorporate the analysis contained in the Krane Opinion . cited above. R. Edward Ferraro, Esquire April 30, 1984 Page 3 Conclusion: In response to those questions which are within our authority to answer, we conclude that the non - working Supervisor in the above situation should not, consistent with Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act, use his public office to obtain or have the Township pay the premiums for this life insurance coverage. There is no opinion of the Ethics Commission which would indicate that the Supervisor- worker in the factual situation outlined above, could not be paid an hourly rate for the roadwork performed and be eligible to have the Township pay for a policy on his life as a fringe benefit, assuming that such a benefit is approved in accordance with the provisions of the Second -Class Township Code as applicable and appropriate. The State Ethics Commission has no ruling indicating the number of hours worked needed to designate a Supervisor as an "employee" and it is submitted that this is a question most properly answered by reference to a law, code, rule or practice other than the Ethics Act. Pursuant to Section 7(9)(ii), this Advice is a complete defense in any enforcement proceeding initiated by the Commission, and evidence of good faith conduct in any other civil or criminal proceeding, providing the requestor has disclosed truthfully all the material facts and committed the acts complained of in reliance on the Advice given. CW /rdp This letter is a public record and will be made available as such. Finally, if you disagree with this Advice or if you have any reason to challenge same, you may request that the full Commission review this Advice. A personal appearance before the Commission will be scheduled and a formal Opinion from the Commission will be issued. Any such appeal must be made, in writing, to the Commission within 15 days of service of this Advice pursuant to 51 Pa. Code 2.12. cerely, Sandra S. istianson General Counsel