Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout81-509 CapotisMr. Christopher Capotis 142 Griffin Avenue Erie, PA 16511 t STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 February 4, 1981 ADVICE OF COUNSEL 81 -509 RE: Transit Authority Employees, Dual Employment Dear Mr. Capotis: This responds to your letter of October 30, 1980 in which you, an employee of the Erie Metropolitan Transit Authority (hereinafter EMTA), requested an Opinion from the Ethics Commission. Issue: You ask for advice as to whether an employee of the EMTA may serve as a paid consultant to a local non - profit agency. Facts: You propose to provide planning expertise and technical assistance to the agency on a fee basis after working hours. These services are unrelated to your duties at the EMTA. Discussion: The Ethics Act does not forbid a public employee (See Caveat, below) from acting as a consultant to a local non - profit agency on a fee basis. A public employee who provides consulting services to a non - profit agency for a fee should be aware that the Act does forbid a public employee from using his public employment or any confidential information obtained from his public employment to obtain financial gain for himself or a member of his immediate family. 65 P.S. §403(a). Further, to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest proscribed by the Act in §1, 65 P.S. §401, a public employee should disqualify himself from considering any proposal the employee advised the agency on, if such a proposal should come before the EMTA. Conclusion: There is no inherent violation of the Ethics Act when a public employee serves as a paid consultant to a local non - profit agency. The public employee should not use his public employment or confidential information obtained in that employment to obtain financial gain for himself or his immediate Mr. Christopher Capotis February 4, 1981 Page 2 family. You should also disqualify yourself from considering a project where you served as consultant should such a proposal come before the EMTA. One final caveat is necessary. The basic question of whether employees of authorities formed under the Municipal Authorities Act, 53 P.S. 301 et seq. are covered by the Ethics Act is currently in litigation. We provide this response because of your inquiry and to guide your actions, assuming that you would be within the purview of the Ethics Act. We realize that this Transit Authority may have been formed under specific provisions other than 53 P.S. 301 et seq. and even if this litigation would likewise affect EMTA we feel that this Advice, having been requested, is still appropriate. Pursuant to Section 7(9)(ii), this Advice is a complete defense in any enforcement proceeding initiated by the Commis- sion, 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 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. SW /rdp cerely, ndra S . 1! istianson General Counsel