HomeMy WebLinkAbout80-583 MustoTO:
FACTS:
DISCUSSION:
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120,
March 18. 1980
Joseph J. Musto
Griffith, Aponick & Musto
408 Wilkes -Barre Center
39 Public Square
Wilkes- Barre, PA 18701
ADVICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL
RE: Supervisor Bidding on a Contract
Advice # 80 -583
On February 25, 1980, Joseph J. Musto wrote this office
asking for an opinion concerning the legality of awarding
a contract by his client to a supervisor.
Mr. Musto's client, Giovanni Associates Inc. successfully
applied for re- zoning to the Butler Township Supervisors. They
then let out bids for construction, and the lowest bid was that
of a Supervisor.
The issue is whether a supervisor may bid on a project
which he previously ruled on with respect to re- zoning.
At the time of the re- zoning the supervisor had no
economic interest in the contract. Section 3(c) of the State
Ethics Act permits a member of a governmental body to deal
with that governmental body with respect to his own business
interest providing the contract is awarded through "an open
and public process." In this fact situtation we are not
involved with contracting with the township, but the rationale
of Section 3(c) may be applied.
Section 3(d) of the State Ethics Act permits the Commission
to address other areas of possible conflict. It would appear
that if a supervisor can deal with its own governmental body
as long as it is through an open and public process, he could
also deal with a citizen who has asked for special treatment
by the governmental body, provided such dealing is through
an open and public process.
Joseph J. Musto
March 18, 1980
Page 2
Since the supervisor won the contract by submitting the
lowest bid, the same standards as are required in the 3(c)
situation are met.
CONCLUSION:
DRM /rdp -3
A supervisor who has voted on a re- zoning matter is not
engaged in a conflict of interest if he later submits a bid
to that contractor for the work.
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