HomeMy WebLinkAbout80-540 WheelerTO: William J. Wheeler, Esquire
1200 Walnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
RE: Revolving Door Bar & Former Employee Being Hired as a
Hearing Examiner
FACTS:
February 22, 1980 William J. Wheeler, Esquire wrote this
Commission asking for an opinion by the first week of March.
The opinion was received on February 28, 1980. Mr. Wheeler
left his position as Assistant Attorney General assigned to
the Bureau of Professional & Occupational Affairs on January 31,
1980. Subsequent to his leaving that position he has been
requested to act as a Hearing Examiner in a case which was pending
before the State Board of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers, dealers
and salesman.
Neither counsel has any objection to Mr. Wheeler hearing
the case.
DISCUSSION:
The issue is whether Section 3(e) bars an individuals from
being hired on a part -time basis by his formal governmental body
to act as a Hearing Examiner. A subsidiary issue relates to
whether a person act as a Hearing Examiner when he was formerly
an Assistant Attorney General with that agency while the case is
pending.
Section 3(e) states: "No former official or public employee
shall represent a person, with or without compensation, on any
matter before the governmental body with which he has been
associated for one year after he leaves that body."
Acting as a Hearing Examiner on behalf of an agency with
which one was formerly assocated is not representing a person
before that agency. Therefore, Section 3(e) does not apply.
Under the facts all counsel in the case have indicated that
they have no objection to Mr. Wheeler acting as Hearing Examiner.
If counsel for the parties have no objection, the Commission
likewise can have no objection. Where one to object, there would
be a different fact situation before this Commission.
February 28, 1980
ADVICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL
Advice #540
CONCLUSION:
Section 3(e) does not bar a former Assistant Attorney
General from acting as a Hearing Examiner with the agency
with which he was formerly associated. Where all parties
consent to that individual being a Hearing Examiner, there
could be no question of impropriety in his acting as Hearing
Examiner.
DRM /rdp -1
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 disclsoed 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.
DAVIT RI ENHOUSE MORRI 0
Chief Counsel