Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout84-639 ReidMs. Helen W. Reid P.O. Box 252 Nottingham, PA 19362 Dear Ms. Reid: L::.i iA iii !.:.... .._ . . !i it : l "t _: i'. Build December 28, 1984 ADVICE OF COUNSEL Re: Township Ordinance, Mobile Home Court This responds to your letter of December advice from the State Ethics Commission. 84 -639 20, 1984, in which you requested Issue: You ask whether, you as a supervisor, may vote on a proposed amendment to a zoning ordinance for the Township you serve under certain circumstances. Facts: You indicate that you currently as a supervisor in West Nottingham Township, hereinafter the Township. The Township adopted an ordinance in 1983 and recently, an amendment has been proposed to that ordinance concerning mobile homes to be placed on private lots. You indicate that the Township has a separate ordinance pertaining to mobile home parks. Further, you indicate that you hold a real estate salesman license and that your son owns a mobile home court and selles mobile homes within the Township. A vote on a proposed amendment is to be taken on January 8, 1985 and you question whether there would be any conflict in your participating in the Township's decisions and votes with respect to this proposed amendment under the circumstances outlined above. Discussion: As an elected supervisor in the Township you are, of course, a "public official" as that term is defined in the State Ethics Act. See Section 2, State Ethics Act, 65 P. S. 402. As a public official your conduct must conform to the provisions of the State Ethics Act. The most pertinent provision of the State Ethics Act in light of the question presented above is Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act which states as follows: Ms. Helen Reid December 28, 1984 Page 2 Section 3. Restricted activities. (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). Of course, under this provision, you may not use your public position as a supervisor to secure any financial gain for yourself, a member of your immediate family or a business in which you are associated. Incidently, the definition of the term "immediate family" includes only a spouse living in your household and minor dependent children. On the facts as set forth above and information which is logically deduced from those facts, we will assume that your son is not a minor dependent child. However, if you use your real estate license independently or as an employee of any business, that business would he considered to be one with which you are "associated" as defined in the State Ethics Act. See Section 2 of the State Ethics Act, 65 P. S. 403 (a). Thus, you could not use your public office or cast any votes as a public official which would have the effect of benefitting yourself or any business with which you are employed or associated. In the circumstances outlined above, however, there does not appear to be a real possibility that there would be any financial gain to yourself or a business by which you are employed or with which you are associated if you were to vote on the proposed amendment. Likewise, the provisions of Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act would not even be applicable to the situation of your son who is involved in a mobile court or as a mobile home salesman because he is not within the definition of "immediate family" as set forth above. In any event, even with respect to your son there does not appear to be any direct financial gain or specific benefit that he, as a mobile home court operator or salesman would derive from this particular amendment to the Township zoning ordinance. Basically, the Commission has required abstention by a public official where the public official, a member of the officials immediate family or business with which they are associated has a direct, immediate, or particular interest in the matter which would be subject to the official's vote. See Krier, 84 -002. For example, where the question to be presented to the public iallaal for his consideration or vote directly and individually impacts upon his or her spouse, the Commission has required abstention. See Leete, 82 -005. Ms. Helen Reid December 28, 1984 Page 3 However, in the present case no facts have been presented which would indicate that you, as an individual or because of your possession of a real estate license, would be benefitted directly or individually or even impacted any more than any other member of the public or the Township by the proposed amendment. Accordingly, you could participate in the Township's decisions relating to this proposed amendment and would not be subject to any restriction or required to absten from same under the Ethics Act. Conclusion: Under the circumstances set forth above, Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act would not prohibit you from participating in the final vote on the proposed amendment. Thus, as a supervisor within the Township you may participate in the Township's decisions and votes with respect to this proposed amendment. 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 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 /sfd Sincerely, Sandra S. Christianson General Counsel