Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout84-521 PrattRalph D. Pratt, Member House of Representatives 328 Main Capitol Building Harrisburg, PA 17120 RE: Job Training Partnership Act, Rental, Office Space Dear Representative Pratt: Mailing Address. STATE ETHICS COMMISSION P.O. BOX 1 179 HARRISBURG, PA 17108 TELEPHONE: (717) 783 -1610 February 7, 1984 ADVICE OF COUNSEL 84 -521 This responds to your letter of January 27, 1984, in which you requested advice from the State Ethics Commission. Issue: You ask whether the Ethics Act imposes any restrictions upon your rental of office space to a seven - county non - profit corporation. Facts: You indicate that you currently are serving as a member of the House of Representatives from the 10th Legislative District. You also own real estate which you might wish to lease and question whether you may enter into a lease or contract under the circumstances outlined below. Specifically, you might seek to contract or lease the real estate that you own for office spaces to the Northwest Pennsylvania Job Training Consortium, hereinafter, the Consortium. The Consortium would have an office in Clark, Pennsylvania, Lawrence County. The Consortium is a non - profit corporation and the Consortium has proposed to lease its Lawrence County office space from you at fair market value. The Consortium is the designated local service delivery agency for Lawrence County pursuant to the Federal Job Training Partnership Act, which was enacted by Congress two years ago and provided for the replacement of the now repealed CETA program. This federal program provides for block grant funding to the various states with the executive branch of the states providing for certain administrative services, including the selection of local service delivery areas throughout the State in accordance with the federal law and regulations. Upon receipt of the block grants by the Commonwealth, the Legislature appropriates, by enactment of the Fedeal Augmentation Budget, the block grant funding. The amounts and the recipients of the funding are pre- determined by the executive branch in accordance of Federal Law and guidelines. However, seventy -eight percent of the block grant funds must be utilized for the local service delivery areas for direct services while 22% maximum can be used for administrative purposes. State Ethics Commission • 308 Finance Building • Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Ralph D. Pratt, Member February 7, 1984 Page 2 Discussion: As an elected member of the House of Representatives you are a "public official" as that term is defined in the State Ethics Act, 65 P.S. 402. As such, your conduct must conform to the requirements of the State Ethics Act. The basic question which you ask is whether you may rent property to the Consortium which will then use these offices in Lawrence County to undertake their responsibility as the designated local service delivery agency under the Federal Job Training Partnership Act. As the facts above indicate, although the House of Representatives would be involved in passage of an appropriation by enactment of the Federal Augmentation Budget relating to block grant funding, there is no designation within this budgetary enactment that certain monies will be appropriated to the particular lease or building rental with which you might be involved. Thus, the fact that you, as a member of the House, would be called upon to address the question of this Federal Augmentation Budget would not preclude you from either engaging in a contract to lease premises to Consortium or require that you, as a member of the House, refrain from voting on the Federal Augmentation Budget in general if you were to enter into such a lease. Specifically, the Ethics Act would require that if you or a member of your family or a business with which you are associated were to enter into a lease with the governmental body with which you are associated (the House) the requirements of an open and public process contained in Section 3(c) of the Ethics Act would be imposed. However, in the present case you would be, if a lease were undertaken, contracting with the Consortium. Even though the House would pass upon a budget which indirectly affects the Consortium, this would not prohibit the contract or lease nor would it impose any requirements under Section 3(c) of the Ethics Act. Otherwise, your conduct must conform to the requirements of Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act as set forth below: (a) No public official or public employee shall use his public office or any confidential information received through his holding public office to obtain financial gain other than compensation provided by law for himself, a member of his immediate family, or a business with which he is associated. 65 P.S. 403(a). Ralph 1). Pratt, Member February 7, 1984 Page 3 Under Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act you may not use your public office to secure for yourself personal financial gain. Thus, if you were presented with a situation where your vote on the Federal Augmentation Budget would be tantamount to awarding yourself or a business with which you are associated, this lease or contract, you would be required to abstain from participation in that particular vote of the House. However, as we understand the facts, the relationship between the budget upon which you are currently required to vote and the Consortium and its lease of your property is remote. Thus, abstention on your part would not necessarily be required as to the Federal Augmentation Budget in general, even if you were to undertake a lease with the Consortium. Also, we must, for purposes of completness, indicate that your conduct must also conform to the requirements of Section 3(b) of the Ethics Act as set forth below: (b) No person shall offer or give to a public official or public employee or candidate for public office or a member of his immediate family or a business with which he is associated, and no public official or public employee or candidate for public office shall solicit or accept, anything of value, including a gift, loan, political contribution, reward, or promise of future employment based on any understanding that the vote, official action, or judgment of the public official or public employee or candidate for public office would be influenced thereby. 65 P.S. 403(b). Obviously, as a "public official" you could not accept anything of value, including this offer of a contract or lease, on the understanding that your official conduct with respect to any matter of interest to the Consortium would be influenced thereby. Again, we add this reference to this Section in an effort to be complete and not to in any way indicate that any such activity is involved. Conclusion: There would be no violation of the Ethics Act nor would there be any conflict of interest under the Ethics Act if you were to enter into the contract and lease premises as set forth above to the Consortium. 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. Ralph D. Pratt, Member February 7, 1984 Page 4 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, Sandra S. Chi /'stianson General Counsel