Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout84-576 ButlerDonald R. Butler, Esquire 7 Public Avenue Montrose, PA 18801 Marling Address. STATE ETHICS COMMISSION P.O. BOX 1 179 HARRISBURG, PA 17108 TELEPHONE: (717) 783 -1610 June 20, 1984 ADVICE OF COUNSEL 84 -576 RE: Second Class Township, Supervisors, Employees, Insurance Benefits Dear Mr. Butler: This responds to your letter of May 14, 1984, in which you, as solicitor, had requested advice on behalf of a township. Issue: You ask whether a supervisor who is a road foreman and a supervisor who is the of the township may have their medical insurance paid by the township. Facts: You indicate that while you were attending the Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors seminar on January 6 and 7, 1984, you heard a speach given by members of this Commission's staff. You indicate that the Township you represent may have a "problem" with respect to medical insurance coverage which you wish us to address. Specifically, the Township in which you serve as solicitor pays the medical insurance for employees who have been employed by the Township for a period of one year. One of these employees is a Supervisor who is appointed as road foreman pursuant to the provisions of the Second Class Township Code. Another individual who is a recipient of such coverage is the Secretary of the Township who is also a Supervisor. We assume here that this individual, as with the road foreman, is appointed as Secretary pursuant to the provisions of the Second Class Township Code. The third Supervisor in the Township is not provided coverage by the Township for insurance and he maintains his own insurance policies. With respect to this situation you ask us to advise whether there is any problem under the Ethics Act with either the Supervisor who is the road foreman or the Supervisor who is appointed as Secretary continuing to have their medical insurance paid for by the Township. State Ethics Commission • 308 Finance Building • Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Donald R. Butler, Esquire June 20, 1984 Page 2 Discussion: We are assuming that your Township is a second class township and, therefore, its supervisors are elected officials pursuant to the Second Class Township Code. As elected officials, these individuals are subject to the requirements of the Ethics Act as "public officials." Accordingly, their conduct must conform to the requirements of the Ethics Act. Also, their conduct as supervisors is governed by the provisions of the Second Class Township Code as enacted and amended. The two Supervisors about whose conduct you inquire were, we assume, appointed as a road foreman and Secretary to the Township respectively pursuant to the provisions of the Second Class Township Code. See 53 P.S. 65514 and 53 P.S. 65515 respectively. As such, we will assume for purposes of this Advice that their selection and compensation for these positions was conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Second Class Township Code. See 53 P.S. 65531 and 65540 as well. Under the factual situation as you have outlined above, the main opinion of the Ethics Commission to be reviewed is that set forth in Krane, 84 -001. In Krane the Commission was faced with the situation in which t }e supervisor wouTd not be appointed to act as a roadmaster, superintendent, or laborer, or secretary- treasurer of the township. In that circumstance, the Commission opined that any benefit that such an individual would secure in the form of Township -paid insurance coverages would constitute financial gain and to the extent that that individual would not be employed in any other capacity by the township, that supervisor was not entitled, under Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act, to use his public office to obtain or have the township pay for the premiums for the insurance coverages in question. However, there is no opinion of the Commission nor provision of the Ethics Act which would indicate that so long as the medical insurance coverages paid for by the Township are properly approved according to the Second Class Township Code, that the individuals named in your request would be precluded, by the provisions of the Ethics Act from securing and enjoying such coverages. Conclusion: There is no opinion of the Ethics Commission nor provision of the Ethics Act which would preclude these Supervisors under these circumstances, assuming that compliance with the Second Class Township Code exists as to their appointment and the fixing of their compensation, from securing or enjoying these medical insurance coverages insofar as they are acting in the capacity as road foreman and Secretary for the Township respectively. Donald R. Butler, Esquire June 20, 1984 Page 3 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. 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. SSC /rdp Sincerely, ndra S. Ch isrianson General Couns