Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout85-524 EppleyMr. Robert M. Eppley 175 W. Middlesex Drive Carlisle, PA 17013 STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING P.O. BOX 11470 HARRISBURG, PA 17108 -1470 TELEPHONE (717) 783 -1610 March 15, 1985 ADVICE OF COUNSEL 85 -524 Re: Insurance Coverage, Second Class Township Supervisor /Roadmaster Dear Mr. Eppley: This responds to your letter of March 1, 1985, wherein you requested the advice of the State Ethics Commission. Issue: Whether a township supervisor who has been appointed as a full -time working roadmaster may, within the purview of the State Ethics Act, receive health insurance for himself and his dependents at township's expense. Facts: You indicate that you currently serve in the capacity as a member of the township board of supervisors for Middlesex Township, a township of the Second - Class. In addition to your position as supervisor, you have been appointed roadmaster and you work full -time on the township roads as either a laborer or equipment operator. You seek the advice of the State Ethics Commission as to whether, within the purview of the State Ethics Act, you may receive health insurance for yourself and your dependents if such is to be paid for by the township. Discussion: At the outset, it must be noted that as a township supervisor you are a public official within the purview of the State Ethics Act and, therefore, subject to the provisions thereof. 65 P.S. §401 et. sea; See opinion 80 -050, Sowers. Mr. Robert M. Eppley March 15, 1985 Page 2 Under the factual situation that 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 the supervisor would not he 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. Additionally, if such individual would not be employed in any other capacity by the township, he could not, under Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act, use his public office to obtain or have the township pay for the premiums for the insurance coverages in question. See, eg: Hoak and McCutcheon v. State Ethics Commission, 466 A.2d 283 (1983) and 53 P.S. §65515. Supervisors, who are, however, employed by the township in a position such as roadmaster or laborer pursuant to the Second Class Township Code, may within the purview of the Ethics Act, receive compensation as fixed and approved by the township board of auditors. 53 P.S. §65515. Such authorized and properly approved compensation may include insurance coverage of the type herein question. See, 53 P.S. 65713. In this repsect, there is no opinion of the Commission or 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 a township supervisor who is also a township employee as set forth in the Code would be precluded by the provisions of the Ethics Act from securing and enjoying such coverages. See 85 -561, Ferraro; 84 -576, Butler. Conclusion: There is no opinion of the Ethics Commission or provision of the Ethics Act which would preclude a supervisor under these circumstances, assuming that compliance with the Second Class Township Code exists as to the appointment and the fixing of compensation, from securing or enjoying health insurance coverages insofar as they are acting in the capacity as roadmaster and /or laborer for the township. 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. Mr. Robert M. Eppley March 15, 1985 Page 3 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. JJC /sfd General Counsel