HomeMy WebLinkAbout84-544 FieldsRobert J. Fields, Esquire
Fields & Bianco
Box 329, Honesdale Road
Waymart, PA 18472
Dear Mr. Fields:
Mading Address.
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
HARRISBURG, PAS
TELEPHONE: (717) 783-1610
April 5, 1984
ADVICE OF COUNSEL
84 -544
RE: Borough of Forest City, Forest City Regional School Director
This responds to your letter of March 8, 1984, in which you requested
advice from the State Ethics Commission.
Issue: You ask whether you may undertake certain activities in your capacity
as Solicitor for the Borough of Forest City, hereinafter, the Borough, and in
your capacity as a School Director serving on the Forest City Regional School
Board, hereinafter, the School Board, as the representative from Vandling
Borough, hereinafter the Borough.
Facts: You indicate that you currently serve as Solicitor for the Borough.
In January, 1984, you were also sworn in as a Director for the School Board.
In 1982, on behalf of the Borough, as their Solicitor, you filed a
petition with the Susquehanna Court of Common Pleas to abolish the Board's
system of electing councilmen within the Borough. At that time, you were not
on the School Board. However, the School Board, in response to the Borough's
petition, requested from the Court and received permission to intervene in
that action which you filed on behalf of the Borough as Solicitor. The School
Board alleged that abolition of the ward system of electing councilmen would
adversely affect the regionalization of the Board. In February, 1984, the
Court denied the Borough's petition for abolition of the ward system of
electing councilmen and the Council voted to appeal the decision to
Commonwealth Court. In this appeal you will be acting as Solicitor on behalf
of the Borough.
You indicate that you will not participate in the School Board's
discussions and votes on the issue of whether or not the School Board should
continue its intervention in the appeal filed by the Borough to Commonwealth
Court. You ask whether this abstention is sufficient or whether you must
resign from the Board or withdraw as Council for the Borough.
State Ethics Commission • 308 Finance Building • Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 1112-0
Robert J. Fields, Esquire
April 5, 1984
Page 2
Discussion: In your capacity as a School Director within the Forest City
Regional School Board, you are a "public official" as that term is defined in
the State Ethics Act. However, under the circumstances which you present, the
provisions of the Ethics Act would not be violated were you to continue to
serve in both posts, ie., Solicitor for the Borough and School Director. Your
decision to refrain from and abstain from all School Board discussions and
votes regarding the issue of whether the School Board should continue its
intervention in this appeal would suffice to obviate any conflict of interest
or any appearance of a conflict of interest, should such be discernable, under
the Ethics Act.
This response, of course, is limited to our review of this question under
the provisions of the Ethics Act. This response does not discuss nor could it
address any inherent problems under the School Code, the Borough Code, or the
Rules of Disciplinary Responsibility promulgated by the Supreme Court of
Pennsylvania.
Conclusion: Under the Ethics Act, there is no inherent incompatibility and
your retention of your post as Solicitor for the Borough and your service as
School Director. Your proposal to refrain and abstain from all School Board
discussions and votes concerning the issues outlined above is sufficient to
eliminate any appearance of a conflict of interest, if any, which might arise
under the provisions of the Ethics Act under these circumstances.
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,
ra S. C istianson
General Counsel