Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout84-563 SemmelMr. Paul W. Semmel, Member Pennsylvania House of Representatives House Post Office Box 162 Main Capitol Building Harrisburg, PA 17120 STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PA 17120 TELEPHONE: (717) 783 -1610 May 2, 1984 ADVICE OF COUNSEL 84 -563 RE: District Office, Campaign Office Dear Representative Semmel: This responds to your letter of April 5, 1984, in which you requested advice from the State Ethics Commission. Issue: You ask whether there is any violation of the Ethics Act in renting space within the same building to be used as your district office and as your campaign headquarters. Facts: You currently serve as an elected Representative from the 187th Legislative District in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. You currently operate a district office at 2 Spring Hill Drive, Sand Spring Professional Building in Schnecksville, Pennsylvania. This building is owned by Dr. James Henninger. This building also serves as his dental office. However, in the same building there is currently a vacant office. This vacant office has separate entrances and exits from your district office entrances and exits. Your campaign committee is considering renting this vacant office for use as a campaign office. Discussion: As an elected Representative you are a "public official" as that term is defined in the State Ethics Act. See 65 P.S. 402. As such, your conduct must conform to the requirements of the State Ethics Act. Mr. Paul W. Semmel, Member May 2, 1984 Page 2 While this Commission has ruled that the use of a district office for campaign activities would constitute an appearance of a conflict with the public trust and should be avoided, there is no opinion of this Commission which indicates that it would be a violation of the Ethics Act or give rise to the appearance of a conflict with the public trust if your campaign headquarters were to be located within the same building as your district office. See Cessar, 82 -002. This conclusion is especially apparent whether the campaign office would be separate and di stinct even as to entrances and exits from the facility utilized as your district office. Conclusion: The Ethics Act contains no provision and the Ethics Commission has made no ruling which would indicate that the above situation would give rise to a conflict or an appearance of a conflict with the public trust under 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. SSC /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. Sincerely, Sandra S. C istianson General Counsel