HomeMy WebLinkAbout79-562 ReichardTO:
DISCUSSION:
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
P. 0. Box 1179
Harrisburg, PA 17108
ADVICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL
December 17, 1979
Larry Reichard
Mercer County Regional Planning Commission
94 East Shenango Street
Sharpsville Center Plaza
Sharpsville, PA 16150
Advice Number 79 562
RE: Architect Serving With County Planning Commission
and Serving With School Board Advisory Committee
FACTS:
On October 24, 1979, the Commission received a
request for Advice from Larry Reichard, Senior Planner/
Landscape Architect, with the Mercer County Regional
Planning Commission.
Mr. Reichard advised that he was personally involved
with the School Board of the Mercer Area School District
as Chairman of a 12 member advisory committee to determine
the position of a recently condemned school property.
There is a potential for review by the Regional
Planning Commission pursuant to the Pennsylvania Munici-
palities Planning Code pursuant to the Pennsylvania
Municipalities Planning Code.
Mr. Reichard inquired if the school board's final
decision was "forwarded back to the Regional Planning
Commission to review," could that review and approval
constitute a possible conflict of interest?
The issue in this case is whether there is a conflict
of interest from employment by a county planning commission
and service on an advisory committee to a school board,
where such advice can potentially be reviewed by the
planning commission.
As Senior Planner /Landscape Architect with the Mercer
County Regional Planning Commission, Mr. Reichard is a
public employee under §2 of the State Ethics Act because
he is an individual employed by a political subdivision of
ADVICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL
PAGE 2
of the Commonwealth and is responsible for taking and
recommending official action of a nonministerial nature
with regard to planning.
The purpose, as set forth in §1 of the State Ethics
Act, is to insure that public officials "present neither a
conflict nor the appearance of a conflict with a public
trust." The Commission construes this purpose to apply
equally to public employees covered by Act 170.
The Commission notes that there is mere potential
that Mr. Reichard will review his own recommendation.
In such event he should decline to take part in any
review of his own Advisory Opinion to the school board.
CONCLUSION:
There is no per se violation of Act 170 for a
Senior Planner /Landscape Architect of a County Planning
Commission to serve as an Advisory Committee Chairman
to a school board, even though there is potential for
that the recommendation to be reviewed by the County
Planning Commission. In the event there is a review
by the County Planning Commission, the public employee
of the County Planning Commission who made the original
recommendation as a member of an Advisory group.
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.
D D RITTENHO
ief Counsel