HomeMy WebLinkAbout89-591 BrazilDear Mr. Brazil:
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
P.O. BOX 11470
HARRISBURG, PA 17108 -1470
TELEPHONE (717) 783 -1610
ADVICE OF COUNSEL
November 30, 1989
Mr. John J. Brazil, Jr. 89 -591
Law Offices
Brazil & Brazil
Connell Building, Suite 827
Scranton, PA 18503
Re: Conflict, Public Employee, Borough Engineer, Borough, Plans,
Representation, Private Clients.
This responds to your letter of October 13, 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 borough engineer
from representing private individuals as to plans which would be
submitted to the borough.
Facts: You are the solicitor for Moosic Borough and on behalf of
the borough engineer, you inquire as to the propriety of the
borough engineer being hired by a private individual for the
purpose of preparing engineering plans which would have to be
submitted to the borough zoning board for approval as to the
land subdivision. The normal procedure in such cases is for the
borough engineer to review all subdivision plans. In light of
the above, you inquire as to whether the borough engineer may
represent this individual and if so would the borough engineer be
precluded from participating or reviewing these plans of the
borough which would necessitate the borough either having the
planning commission or an outside engineer review the plans for
the borough.
Discussion: As a borough engineer for Moosic, the individual is
a "public employee" as that term is defined in the Ethics Law and
hence he is subject to the provisions of the Ethics Law. 65 P.S.
S402; 51 Pa. Code S1.1.
Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act provides:
Page ,2
Section 3. Restricted Activities.
(a) No public official or public
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.
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
instant matter, the borough engineer has the duty to review plans
that are submitted for proposed land subdivisions. In such a
situation, if the borough engineer would be hired by the client
to prepare such engineering plans, a conflict would exist. He as
Page 3
the employee of this individual would be serving that private
client; in his capacity as borough engineer he would have the
primary duty to determine whether the plans are adequate and
proper and whether it is in the best interest of the borough to
recommend such plans for approval. In such a situation his duty
to his private client would conflict with his public duty to the
borough. Therefore, although the Ethics Law would not prohibit
the borough engineer from outside employment, the Law would
prohibit him from using the authority of office to approve,
review, recommend or play any role in the approval of the plans
in relation to any borough action involving his client or the
subdivision plan in which he was involved. In such a situation
he would have to divest himself from any participation in the
borough's actions. Such a result is necessitated by the fact
that his actions would result in the securing of a private
pecuniary benefit for himself for the work that he did for these
private clients. Additionally, Section 3(a) would prohibit him
from using confidential information for similar purposes. In
addition he may not use any of the borough resources or
facilities in order to further his private engineering business
including but not limited to the use of telephones, staff
equipment, research materials, personnel, or for any time he is
being paid as a public employee.
In light of the fact that the borough engineer would have a
conflict as to any plans that he did for private clients, Section
3(j) of the Ethics Law would require him to publically announce
and disclose his conflict as well as file a written memorandum
with the secretary responsible for recording the minutes.
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. Specifically
not addressed is the applicability of the Borough Code.
Conclusion: As a the borough engineer for Moosic, the individual
is a "public employee" subject to the provisions of the Ethics
Law. Although Section 3(a) of the Ethics Law would not prohibit
the borough engineer from preparing the plans for private
clients, Section 3(a) would prohibit him from participating in
any fashion regarding any such plans that are submitted to the
borough. In addition, he may not use any borough facilities for
his private interests. Finally, Section 3(j) of the Ethics Law
would require him to publically announce his conflict and file a
written memorandum with the secretary recording the minutes.
Lastly, the propreity of the proposed conduct has only been
addressed under the Ethics Law.
Page 4
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 requester 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 in writing
and must be received at the Commission within 15 days of the date
of this Advice pursuant to 51 Pa. Code §2.12.
Sincerely,
Vincent Dopko,
Chief Counsel