Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout80-725 RetosGeorge Retos, Jr., Esquire Retos Law Building 70 E. Wheeling Street Washington, PA 15301 STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 October 21, 1980 ADVICE OF COUNSEL 80 -725 RE: Solicitors, Dual Employment, Municipal Authority Dear Attorney Retos: This responds to your letter of September 29, 1980, in which you, as Solicitor of a county 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 county and as solicitor for an authority incorporated by the same county. Facts: We assume that the solicitor would be the solicitor appointed in accordance with the provisions of the County Code and that the authority in question is a municipal authority incorporated under the provisions of the Muni- cipality 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 county and the municipal authority are legally distinct entities simultaneous employment of the same attorney by the county 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 George Retos, Jr., Esquire October 21 1980 Page 2 financial gain for himself or a member of his immediate family or a business with which he is associated other than 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 county and a municipal authority incorporated by that same county 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 S.hristianson General Counsel