Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout80-722 StoppCharles W. Stopp Steckel & Stopp 1036 Main Street Slatington, PA 18080 Dear Mr. Stopp: STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 October 9, 1980 ADVICE OF COUNSEL 80 -722 RE: Civil Service Commissioner, Police Contract Negotiation This responds to your letter of September 29, 1980, in which you requested an opinion, as Solicitor for the Borough of Slatington. Issue: Specifically you inquire as to whether an individual currently serving as Civil Service Commissioner in the Borough may act as the chief negotiator on behalf of the Borough in contract negotiations involving the Borough police contract? Facts: The Borough is subject to the Civil Service provi- sions of the Borough Code, 53 P.S. 46171 et seq. The Commissioners are appointed in accordance with the provi- sions of the Borough Code by Borough Council. These commissioners receive no compensation. See 53 P.S. 46172. The Civil Service Commissioner in question is being consi- dered for appointment as the chief negotiator in contract negotiations with the Borough policeman. The Civil Service Commissioner in question is currently a teacher in the local school district with some experience in collective bargaining process, having worked closely with the school teachers bargaining unit on behalf of the school district. This negotiator will not be paid by the Borough Council for his work as negotiator. The Civil Service Commission of the Borough has the responsibility for conducting hearings for police officers who may have been suspended, removed or reduced in rank. The Civil Service Commission also engages in reviewing candidates for appointment to the Borough police force, after examination and certification conducted in compliance with the Borough civil service provisions. Finally, the negotiation involving the police force may include such items as "just cause" for discharge which the Civil Service Commission may then ultimately review in particular cases. Charles W. Stopp October 9, 1980 Page 2 Discussion: The initial question raised is whether the individual in question, a Civil Service Commissioner, is a "public official" as that term is defined in the Ethics Act. Specifically, the definitiion of "public official" speci- fically exludes any appointed official who receives no compensation, other than reimbursement for actual expenses. As such then, it would appear that the Civil Service Commis- sioner is not within the definition of "public official." However, the Commission believes that the provisions referring to conflicts of interest would still be applicable to such an individual, I nevertheless perceive no inherent conflict with the appointment of this individual to the role as negotiator for the Borough. Decisions of the Commission indicate, for example, that a State Representative, may acquire a contract to provided limited professional services not related to his role as state legislator without running afoul of the State Ethics Act. Geist, 79 -011. Previous Advice of the Counsel for the Commission also indicates that support of one agency of the Commonwealth, for example, for another branch of the Commonwealth in the pursuit of a common interest is not an inherent conflict under Act 170. See Yancey, 80 -675. Therefore, even in relation to the conflict of interest proisions of the Ethics Act, the appointment of this indivi- dual would present no inherent conflict with Act 170. Conclusion: While the Civil Service Commissioner is not per se a "public official" subject to the requirements of the Ethics Act, he should nevertheless avoid actual conflicts of interests and the appearance of any conflict of interest. However, the Commission does not perceive any inherent conflict of interest in the appointment of this Commissioner to the role as chief negotiator on behalf of the Borough as described above. 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. Charles W. Stopp October 9, 1980 Page 3 This letter is a public record and will be made available as such. Finally, if you disagree with this Advice or if you have any reason to challenge same, you may request that the full Commission review this Advice. A personal appearance before the Commission may be scheduled and a formal Opinion from the Commission will be issued. You should make such a request or indicate your disapproval of this Advice within the next 30 days. SSC /rdp Sincerely, „2.L.44., (, id L2.�CtiC(/hd G�1f Sandra S. Christianson General Counsel