HomeMy WebLinkAbout79-558 BeckTO:
DISCUSSION:
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
P. 0. Box 1179
Harrisburg, PA 17108
ADVICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL
December 19, 1979
Edward Beck, Jr.
237 East Main Street
Waynesboro, PA 17268
RE: County Commissioner Dealing With the County
Industrial Development Authority
FACTS:
Adv? -ce Number 79 558
On September 7, 1979, J. Edward Beck, Jr., then
candidate for county commissioner in Franklin County, wrote
the Commission asking for advice relating to an application
by Beck Manufacturing, Inc., and Way Beck Properties to
the Franklin County Industrial Authority. Mr. Beck is
a shareholder of over 5% in Beck Manufacturing, Inc., and
a general partner in Way Beck Properties located in Franklin
County. The application by Beck Manufacturing and Way
Beck Properties to the Industrial Development Authority
would result in the conversion of taxable interest income
to nontaxable interest income on behalf of the lending
institution. Such conversion would lower significantly
the institution's lending rate.
The Franklin County Industrial Development Authority
members are appointed by the county commissioners.
Mr. Beck asked: "Would I be in violation of Act 170
either before or after I take office as county commissioner,
if Way Beck Properties and Beck Manufacturing, Inc. applied
for FCIDA sponsorship ?"
The issue under Act 170 is whether the Franklin
County Industrial Development Authority may accept an
application from a business or businesses of which a
county commissioner has a significant interest.
§1 of Act 170 declares that public office
is a public trust and that any effort to realize personal
financial gain through public office other than compen-
sation provided for by laws is a violation of that trust.
§11 goes on to state "that the financial interest
of holders of or candidates for public office present
ADVICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL
PAGE 2
neither a conflict nor the appearance of a conflict with
the public trust."
Under the facts presented, it is possible that the
existing members of the Franklin County Industrial
Development Authority would decide on the merits of
Beck Manufacturing and Way Beck Properties' applications.
Since none of the members of the Industrial Development
Authority could have been appointed by the County
Commissioners while Mr. Beck was a Commissioner, there
could not be an appearance of a conflict of interest.
§3 (c) of the Act requires that the application
by Beck Manufacturing, Inc., and Way Beck Properties be
considered through an open and public process, including
prior public notice and subsequent public disclosure.
Therefore, should J. Edward Beck, Jr., be elected
Commissioner, he should give prior public notice that
his companies are applying for certain benefits pursuant
to 73 P.S. S371 et seq.
CONCLUSION:
A County Commissioner is not in violation of the
State Ethics Law where a business of which he has a
greater than 5% interest applies to the County Industrial
Development Authority for a grant. Mr. Beck is advised
that he should publicly announce that he has an interest
in the matter now before the Franklin County Industrial
Authority.
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.
?(Ck-c( (P4 t ' /rf SEAL)
DAVID RITTENHOUSE MORRISON
Chief Counsel