Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout79-556 MahaneyTO: FACTS: DISCUSSION: CONCLUSION: STATE; ETHICS COMMISSION P. 0. Box 1179 Harrisburg, PA 17108 ADVICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL December 19, 1979 George F. Mahaney, Esquire 123 East State Street Sharon, PA 16146 RE: Multiple Solicitorship Advice Number 79 546 On October 11, 1979, the Commission received a request for an Opinion as to whether an attorney holding many solicitorships is guilty of a per se violation of Act 170 by reason of the solicitorships alone. He is solicitor for a borough, for the Borough Sewer Authority, for the County Planning Commission (of which the Borough is a member), for the Shenango Valley Code Enforcement Program which is administered by the Mercer County Regional Planning Commission, and for the County Treasurer of Mercer County. The issue is whether holding a solicitorship in all of these governmental bodies constitutes by itself a violation of Act 170. A State Ethics Commission has already held that holding multiple solicitorships is not a per se violation of the State Ethics Act. King, 79 -34. None of these solicitorships are in and of themselves adverse to each other. Were an adverse relationship to appear there would be a conflict of interest under the State Ethics Act. Additional conflicts of interest are set forth in the Code of Professional Responsibility. Being a solicitor for a borough, the Borough Sewer Authority, the County Regional Planning Commission, the ADVICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL PAGE 2 applicable valley code enforcement program for that region, and the County Treasurer all at the same time does not constitute a conflict of interest under Act 170. 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. A personal appearance before the Commission and a formal opinion will be issued upon your request, if you feel this reply does not suffice. This letter is a public record and will be made available as such. DIWID RITTEN Chief Counsel MORRISON