HomeMy WebLinkAbout81-627 MurphyOctober 1, 1981
Edward M. Murphy, Esq.
County Administration Building
200 Adams Avenue - 4th Floor
Scranton, PA 18503
Dear Mr. Murphy:
Mailing Address:
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
P.O. BOX 1179
HARRISBURG, PA 17108
TELEPHONE: (717) 783 -1610
ADVICE OF COUNSEL
RE: Conflict of Interest, Redevelopment Authority, Planning
Commission
This responds to your letter of August 27, 1981, in
which you, as solicitor to the Redevelopment Authority of
Lackawanna County, requested an opinion from the Ethics
Commission.
Issue: You asked for advice as to whether it is a con-
flict of interest for the Executive Director of a Planning
Commission to act as a consultant- contractor to the Lacka-
wanna County Redevelopment Authority.
Facts: You informed us that the Redevelopment Authority
of Lackawanna County is considering employing Rocco L.
Campagna as a Consultant. Campagna is associated with the
firm of Rocco L. Campagna and Associates. This firm
prepared the pleas for the Dunmore Corners Urban Renewal
Project on behalf of the Borough of Dunmore, Lackwanna County,
Pennsylvania. The plans were submitted to the Lackawanna
County Planning Commission and approved by that body.
Campagna is not a member of the Commission but is its
Executive Director.
Discussion: In the Ethics Act, 65 P.S. Section 401 et seq.,
the Legislature proscribed certain activities of public
officials or public employees. The jurisdiction of the
Ethics Commission only addresses issues raised under
Act 170. This advice, therefore, discusses the impact
of the Ethics Act on the situation you described. We are
State Ethics Commission • 308 Finance Building • Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
Edward M. Murphy, Esq.
October 1, 1981
Page 2
not authorized to interpret the County Code, specifically
16 P.S. Section 1806, for you and will not determine what
effect, if any, the prohibitions of 16 P.S. 1806 have on
Mr. Campagna's activities.
The Ethics Act uses the term "public employee" to
include all those employed by a political subdivision of
the Commonwealth who are responsible for taking or recom-
mending non- ministerial official action with regard to
planning, zoning or any other activity where the official
action has a greater than de minimus economic impact
on the interests of any person. 65 P.S. Section 402. The
Lackawanna County Planning Commission is a politial sub-
division and its executive director must certainly be
responsible for taking or recommending non - ministerial
action with regard to planning or zoning. As the Regulations
of the Ethics Commission indicate, executive directors are
commonly considered public employees within the meaning of the
statute. See 51 Pa. Code Section 1.1. -
Asa public employee Rocco Campagna must conform
his conduct to the requirements of the Ethics Act. However,
nothing in the Act prevents Campagna from serving as a
consultant to the Redevelopment Authority provided certain
provisions of the Act are scrupulously observed. Section
3(a) of the Act states that no public employee may use
his public employment or confidential information received
through public employment to obtain . financial gain for
himself or a business with which he is associated. 65
P.S. Section 403(a). Campagna may not use his position with
the Planning Commission or confidential information received
through that position to obtain work as a consultant to
the Authority.
Another part of the Act provides that no public
employee may accept anything of value based on any under-
standing that his official actions will be influenced
thereby. 65 P.S. Section 403(b). "Anything of value"
can be a promise of future employment. Therefore, Campagna
could not accept employment as a consultant to the Redevel-
opment Authority based on any understanding that his official
actions as the Executive Director of the Planning Commission
would be influenced thereby. Campagna should be aware
that he may not accept employment for himself or Rocco L.
Campagna Associates if his official actions would be affected
by such employment.
Edward M. Murphy, Esq.
October 1, 1981
Page 3
Section 3(c) of the law commands that no contract
valued at more than $500 shall be made between a public
employee and a governmental body unless it is awarded in
an open and public process. 65 P.S. Section 403(c). This
prohibition does not apply to contracts entered into by
Rocco Campagna or Rocco Campagna Associates and the Re-
development Authority because the Redevelopment Authority
is not the "governmental body" with which Campagna is
associated. Campagna is "associated with" the Planning
Commission, not the Authority and Section 3(c) would not
preclude proposed contract.
If these limitations are observed there is no conflict
of interest in Campagna acting as consultant to the Authority.
In its decision Alfano, 80 -007, the Ethics Commission
held that there is a conflict of interest where an individual
represents two or more persons with interests adverse to
one another. Campagna does not represent persons with
adverse interests. According to the information you gave
us, the Redevelopment Authority and the Planning Commission
do not have contradictory interests.
Conclusion: An executive director of a county planning
commission is a public employee subject to the Ethics Act.
There is no inherent conflict of interest in the Executive
Director, Rocco L.'Campagna, serving as a consultant to
the Lackawanna County Redevelopment Authority. Campagna
may not use his post as Executive Director or confidential
information received as Executive Director to obtain
financial gain for himself or any business with which he
is associated. Nor may he accept anything of value,
including a promise of future employment of himself or
his business, based on any understanding that his official
acts as Executive Director will be influenced thereby.
Because the governmental body with which Campagna is
associated is the Planning Commission and not the Authority,
he and the Authority may contract without reference to the
open and public process requirements of Section 3(c) of
the Ethics Act.
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
Edward M. Murphy, Esq.
October 1, 1981
Page 4
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.
SSC /lma
Sincerely,
ndra .Christianson
General Counsel