HomeMy WebLinkAbout80-727 TomkielMr. Keith Tomkiel
1005 Betzwood Drive
Norristown, PA 19403
Dear Mr. Tomkiel:
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120
October 23, 1980
ADVICE OF COUNSEL
80 -727
RE: Dual Employment, Police Force, Private Corporation
This responds to your letter of October 1, 1980 in
which you request a further interpretation of your duties
and responsibilities under the Ethics Act.
Issue: Specifically, may a police officer in a municipality
establish and maintain a business dealing with commercial
and industrial security, including the administration of
polygraph tests in his off duty hours?
Facts: At present you serve as a police officer in
Tredyffrin Township, Chester County. You plan, in the near
future, to attend school to become a certified polygraph
operator. If successful in your training, you hope to
establish a business in which you would be primarily dealing
with commercial and industrial security. In this business
your primary function would be to administer polygraph
examinations on behalf of private corporate clients. All
such business would be conducted on your off duty hours.
Further, you would strive to cater to businesses and
corporations not within your local township so as to
alleviate any appearance of any conflict of interest.
Discussion: Reference should be made to the Advice which
was rendered to you 80 -714. As you indicate, you realize
that you must avoid the conflict of interest or the
appearance of a conflict of interests. In addition, as that
Advice indicated the Ethics Act itself would not preclude
you from accepting or soliciting such employment as a
polygraph operator.
Mr. Keith Tomkiel
October 23, 1980
Page 2
You are aware that Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act
precludes any public official from using confidential
information received through his holding of public office to
obtain financial gain other than the compensation allowed
him by law. Thus, as you appear to indicate in your
corrspondence, no referrals for polygraph business could be
obtained or made by utilizing information gained by you as a
police officer. In addition, it must be obvious that any
problem even in a private corporation which would involve
the administering of polygraph examinations may turn into a
criminal proceeding. Of course, in such a circumstance you
could not handle these types of matters as a police
officer. Specifically, if you had become involved in the
administration of a polygraph test to employees of a private
corporation, and subsequently that employee became the
subject of a criminal investigation or complaint you could
not then assume a role as police officer or investigator in
that case in my estimation.
Conclusion: You are not prohibited by the Ethics Act from
entering and developing a business such as the one you
proposed, administering polygraph tests to commercial and
industrial establishments. This business, of course, must
be conducted so as not to conflict with your police job and
cannot be obtained or enhanced by the use of confidential
information gained during your tenure as a police officer.
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
Si cerely,
44.
Sandra S. Ch'istianson
General Cou•sel