HomeMy WebLinkAbout80-724 JamesDear Secretary James:
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120
October 21, 1980
ADVICE OF COUNSEL
Edith M. James, Secretary
West Carroll Township Road District
Box 27
Elmora, PA 15737
RE: Solicitors, Dual Employment, Municipal Authority
80 -724
This responds to your letter of September 22, 1980, in
which you, as Secretary of West Carroll Township requested
an Opinion from the Ethics Commission.
Issue: In your communication you request Advice as to
whether an attorney can serve as solicitor for the township
supervisors and as solicitor for a water authority incor-
porated by the same township.
Facts: We assume that the solicitor would be the solicitor
appointed in accordance with the provisions of the applicable
township code and that the water authority in question is a
municipal authority incorporated under the provisions of the
Municipality Authorities Act of 1945, 53 P.S. 301 et seq.
Discussion: In prior opinions the State Ethics Commission
has ruled that dual employment of an attorney by different
municipalities or governmental bodies does not per se
violate the conflict of interest provisions of the State
Ethics Act. In particular, the Opinion in King, 79 -034
indicates that simultaneous employment of an attorney by two
distinct municipal bodies does not, per se, violate the
Ethics Act. Since the township and the municipal authority
are legally distinct entities simultaneous employment of the
same attorney by the township and municipal authority would
not be precluded.
One point should be made, however. That is: that the
Ethics Act in Section 3(a) prohibits any public official
from using his public office or any confidential information
gained through his holding of public office to obtain
financial gain for himself or a member of his immediate
family or a business with which he is associated other than
Edith M. James, Secretary
October 21, 1980
Page 2
the compensation provided to him for his public duties.
This section, for example, would prohibit any solicitor from
obtaining another contract or other employment by using
confidential information gained as solicitor for one or the
other governmental entity.
Conclusion: The employment of one attorney as solicitor for
a township and a municipal authority incorporated by that
same township is not per se a violation of the conflict of
interest provisions of Act 170. Any solicitor so appointed,
however, may not use his public office or information
obtained while holding public office for his personal
financial gain or for the benefit of his immediate family or
the business with which he may be associated.
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.
This letter is a public record and will be made avail-
able 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
andra . Christianson
General Counsel