Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout84-527 GregoryJames S. Gregory 238 Main Street, Apt. #4 Hellertown, PA 18055 RE: Police Officer, Councilman Dear Mr. Gregory: Mailing Address STATE ETHICS COMMISSION P.O. BOX 1 179 HARRISBURG, PA 17108 TELEPHONE: (717) 783 -1610 February 10, 1984 ADVICE OF COUNSEL 84 -527 This responds to your letter of January 30, 1984, in which you requested advice from the State Ethics Commission. Issue: You have asked whether you may vote on certain matters as a councilman that may effect you as a police officer in a second municipality. Facts: You indicate that you are currently employed as a Police Officer in the Township of Lower Saucon, hereinafter, the Township. You are also serving as an elected Councilman in the Borough of Hellertown, hereinafter, the Borough. On February 7, 1984, the Borough Council will be voting on the question of whether to merge the police departments of the two communities -- the Borough and the Township. Initially, a study will be undertaken to determine the feasibility and other problems associated with this proposed merger. However, in addition to the vote that may be required regarding this study, if the study is undertaken and the merger is recommended, you ask whether you would be able to vote on the proposed merger. Finally, there would also be the question of whether, if the merger occurs, you may face certain restrictions on your conduct as a Councilman within the Borough on questions effecting the police department. Discussion: As a Councilman in the Borough, you are a "public official" as that term is defined in the State Ethics Act. As such, your conduct must conform to the requirements of the State Ethics Act. State Ethics Commission • 308 Finance Building • Harrisburg, Pennsylvania James S. Gregory February 10, 1984 Page 2 One of the requirements of the State Ethics Act is that you, as an elected official, may not use your public office to secure personal financial gain other than the compensation allowed by law. See Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 P.S. 403(a). The State Ethics Commission has determined that this provision of the Act requires that you, as a Councilman, abstain from participating in those matters which might be presented to Council in which you would have a direct, personal, or pecuniary interest. Obviously, if the Township and Borough's police force are to be merged and you are to remain as an officer within the new merged police force, you, as a Councilman, would be disqualified from participating in Council's decisions relating to matters which would directly and personally effect you as a member of the police force. It also seems clear that you would have a direct and personal interest in the question of merger itself, insofar as the recommendations regarding this merger or the procedures to be adopted to implement such a merger might include questions of retention of certain police officers or elimination of certain positions on the police force. Insofar as the merger question, if presented to council, might include those types of questions, you would similarly, be expected to refrain from participation in the discussions, meetings, and votes of council on such questions. However, insofar as the question of studying the concept is concerned, there does not seem to he a direct, immediate and personal, or pecuniary interest in approving or disapproving the mere study as might be present in any decision of Council to approve or adopt the recommendations contained in the study or subsequent matters relating to a possibly merged police force. Thus, the Ethics Act would not prohibit you from voting on whether to undertake the study, per se. In this response, we assume that in such a question presented to the Borough concerning whether to undertake the study there would be no restrictions or requirements imposed by the vote to undertake the study as to the final adoption or agreement with the recommendations of a study. Specifically, if the vote to undertake the study incorporates the concept that the study, when complete, will bind the borough to adopt its recommendations, our analysis might be different. Of course, you should, as a Councilman within the Borough, take no part in the preparation, investigation, etc., required to produce this study. Likewise, we make no review and render no advice with respect to Section 3(c) of the Ethics Act at this time because your question as presented, is limited to a review of the question of whether you may vote on the study or the proposed merger in general. See 65 P.S. 403(c). James S. Gregory February 10, 1984 Page 3 Conclusion: The Ethics Act would not, under the facts as set forth above, disqualify you from participating in the question presented to the Borough as to whether or not a study should be undertaken to merge the police departments of the Borough and the Township. However, if the study, when complete, is reviewed by the Borough and a vote on the proposed merger is to be taken, you should abstain from participation in such a vote, including the discussions and meetings which might be associated with such a vote. Finally, if the proposed merger is approved, you should, as a Councilmember in the Borough, abstain from participation in the Council's decisions which might effect you in a direct, personal, or pecuniary matter with respect to your employment in any merged police force. 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. 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 This letter is a public record and will be made available as such. Sincerely, Sandra S. Chri stianson General Counsel ��'