Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout89-590 CassedayMs. Ruby D. Casseday R.D. #1, Box 266 Greensboro, PA 15338 STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING P.O. BOX 11470 HARRISBURG, PA 1 71 08 -1 470 TELEPHONE (717) 783 -1610 ADVICE OF COUNSEL November 30, 1989 89 -590 Re: Simultaneous Service, Supervisor and Roadmaster, Immediate Family, Spouse. Dear Ms. Casseday: This responds to your letter of October 14, 1989, in which you requested advice from the State Ethics Commission. Issue: Whether the Public Official and Employee Ethics Law imposes any prohibition or restrictions upon a Second Class Township Supervisor from also serving or being employed as a Roadmaster. Facts: You, your husband Blaine Casseday and Calvin Clark are the supervisors for a three member board in Greene Township. You have been appointed roadmaster by a motion made by your husband and seconded by yourself. The third supervisor Mr. Clark expressed concern about such action because of your relationship as husband and wife. Mr. Hook has indicated that a conflict may exist because of your marital relationship and that Mr. Clark would be in charge of job of running the township. You therefore seek the advice of the Ethics Commission so as to resolve this issue. Discussion: As a supervisor for Greene Township, you are a "public official" as that term is defined in the Ethics Law and hence you are subject to the provisions of the Ethics Law. 65 P.S. 5402; 51 Pa. Code §1.1. Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act provides: Section 3. Restricted Activities. (a) No public official or public Page_,2 employee shall engage in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest. The following terms are defined under the Ethics Law: Section 2. Definitions. "Conflict or conflict of interest." Use by a public official or public employee of the authority of his office or employment or any confidential information received through his holding public office or employment for the private pecuniary benefit of himself, a member of his immediate family or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. "Conflict" or "conflict of interest" does not include an action having a de minimis economic impact or which affects to the same degree a class consisting of the general public or a subclass consisting of an industry, occupation or other group which includes the public official or public employee, a member or his immediate family or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. "Authority of office or employment." The actual power provided by law, the exercise of which is necessary to the performance of duties and responsibilities unique to a particular public office or position of public employment. "Immediate family." A parent, spouse, child, brother or sister. In addition, Sections 3(b) and 3(c) of the Ethics Law provide in part that no person shall offer to a public official /employee anything of monetary value and no public official /employee shall solicit or accept any thing of monetary value based upon the understanding that official /employee would be influenced thereby. In applying the above provisions of the Ethics Law to the question of simultaneous service, there does not appear to be any real possibility of a private pecuniary benefit or inherent conflict arising if you were to serve both as a public official /employee and as roadmaster. Basically, the Ethics Law does not state that it is inherently incompatible for a public Page 3 official /employee to serve or be employed as roadmaster. The main prohibition under the Ethics Law and Opinions of the Ethics Commission is that one may not serve the interests of two persons, groups, or entities whose interests may be adverse. See Smith Opinion, 89 -010. In the situation outlined above, you would not be serving entities with interests which are adverse to each other. We also must make reference to the Second Class Township Code. Although the Ethics Commission does not have jurisdiction to interpret that code, we may reference it or other laws, when necessary, to the extent that such laws impact upon the Ethics Law. In this case, the Second Class Township Code does have a provision dealing with the voting for the appointment of a supervisor as roadmaster in townships which have a three member board. In particular, Section 514 provides in part: This section shall not prohibit the township supervisors from being employed as superintendents or roadmasters, or as laborers, if physically able to work on and maintain the roads. With regard to boards of supervisors which are designated as three - member boards, any supervisor who is to be considered by such a board for a position as a compensated employe of the township, as authorized by this section, shall not be excluded from voting on the issue of such appointment; such action by a supervisor shall be deemed to be within the scope of authority as a supervisor and shall not be deemed to constitute an illegal or an improper conflict of interest. In such cases they shall not employ a superintendent or roadmasters and their compensation shall be fixed as hereinafter provided. 53 P.S. S65514. Therefore, based upon the above analysis, Section 3(a) of the Ethics Law would not prohibit you from voting or participating on your appointment as roadmaster. And hence you would not have a conflict in terms of continuing to act as a supervisor relative to board action in "running the township." Lastly, the propriety of the proposed conduct has only been addressed under the Ethics Law; the applicability of any other statute, code, ordinance, regulation or other code of conduct other than the Ethics Act has not been considered in that they do not involve an interpretation of the Ethics Act. Page '4 such. Conclusion: As a supervisor for Greene Township, you are a "public official" subject to the provisions of the Ethics Law. As a public official /employee, you may, consistent with Section 3(a) of the Ethics Law, simultaneously serve in the positions of supervisor and roadmaster. Lastly, the propriety of the proposed course of conduct has only been addressed 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. This letter is a public record and will be made available as 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 in writing and must be received at the Commission within 15 days of the date of this Advice pursuant to 51 Pa. Code 52.12. Sincerely, Vincent . Dopko, Chief Counsel