HomeMy WebLinkAbout80-554 JordenTO:
0
DISCUSSION:
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120
February 25, 1980
ADVICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL
William T. Jorden, Esquire
McClure, Dart, Miller, Kelleher & White
501 Marine Bank Building
Erie, PA 16501
Advice # 554
RE: Township Supervisor Executing a Check To a Surveyor For
Work Done On a Property Adjacent To the Supervisor's
FACTS:
On February 15, 1980, William T. Jorden, Solicitor for
the Supervisors of Harborcreek Township, Erie, Pennslyvania,
wrote this Commission asking for an opinion under the State
Ethics Act.
In 1978 all three township supervisors, including one
Gerald R. Blanchfield, voted to employe an engineering firm
to survey a certain property which was adjacent to supervisor
Blanchfield's property.
Work was completed, and payment to the survey company was
voted by two of the three supervisors. Supervisor Blanchfield
abstained because the survey line was established for one side
of his property, and that might possibly be construed by certain
individuals as an appearance of a conflict of interest.
No one has alledged that Supervisor Blanchfield received any
economic benefit by the survey. The sole question is whether
Supervisor Blanchfield may sign the check as directed by the
remaining two supervisors.
The issue is whether a supervisor is property abuts
property surveyed at the expense of the township may execute
a check directed by the remaining two supervisors, where that
supervisor having the abutting property took no part in the
decision to pay the survey company's bill.
William T. Jorden, Esquire
February 25, 1980
Page 2
Since no economic benefit has alledged to have been acrued
by a supervisor as a result of the survey, and since the
supervisor did not in any way take part in the survey, the State
Ethics Act does not require that he abstain from voting on
Payment of the surveyor's bill. A fortiorari the State Ethics
Act does not bar supervisor Blanchfield from executing a check
directed for execution by the remaining two supervisors.
CONCLUSION:
DRM /rdp -2
A supervisor who obtains no economic benefit by reason
of a survey adjacent to his premises is not required to abstain
from paying the bill to the surveyor, nor is he barred from
executing a check paying the bill to the surveyor as directed
by the remaining two supervisors.
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.
DAVID RITTENHOUSE MORRISON
Chief Counsel