HomeMy WebLinkAbout81-632 RogalaDonald J. Rogala, Esquire
City Solicitor
Municipal Building
Erie, PA 16501
Mailing Address:
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
P.O. BOX 1 179
HARRISBURG, PA 17108
TELEPHONE: (717) 783 -1610
October 30, 1981
ADVICE OF COUNSEL
RE: Conflict of Interest, Abstention
Dear Mr. Rogala:
81 -632
This responds to your letter of April 17, 1981, in
which you, Solicitor of the City of Erie, requested an
opinion from the Ethics Commission on behalf of a member
of the Erie City Council.
Issue: You requested advice as to whether a member of
City Council may participate in a development project
financed by the city, the state and the federal govern-
ment.
Facts: You informed us that the City of Erie, the fed-
eral government and the Pennsylvania Department of
Community Affairs have entered into a Urban Development
Action Grant (UDAG) program with the Erie Insurance
Exchange and a local organization known as B.E.S.T.
The Erie City Council approved the UDAG project. One
of the votes for the project was cast by Councilman
Robert Glowacki. Glowacki is also a real estate broker
and a shareholder in John W. Schaefer Builders, Inc.,
a building corporation. B.E.S.T. approached Schaefer
Builders, Inc., to develope the parcel of land it ac-
quired. The development will consist of five single
family residential units.
Discussion: The Ethics Act, 65 P.S. Section 401 et seq.,
was intended to insure that persons serving in public
State Ethics Commission • 308 Finance Building • Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
Donald J. Rogala, Esquire
October 30, 1981
Page 2
office and holding a public trust would in no way receive
personal financial gain from holding public office other
than that provided by law. 65 P.S. Section 401.
To achieve that end certain regulations were imposed
upon persons deemed to be "public officials" or "public
employees." As a member of the Erie City Council,
Glowacki is a public official within the meaning of the
Act. See 65 P.S. Section 402. Therefore he must domply
with the restrictions Act 170 imposes and avoid conflicts
of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest.
Prior decisions of the Ethics Commission indicate
that a public official may not vote on a project before
him for approval when he has a reasonable expectation
of being asked to work on the project. Sowers, 80 -050.
If a public official votes on a project that he expects
to receive employment from, it creates at least the
appearance of a conflict of interest or the use of
office for personal gain. Accordingly, Glowacki may
have to abstain from voting on any matter relating
to the UDAG project and B.E.S.T. if, because of his present
or potentially continuing business relationship with
B.E.S.T., he now has a reasonable expectation of being
asked to do further work on the development. In addition,
he should place the reasons for his abstention on the
public record. See Sowers (copy attached). From your
letter we cannot say that Mr. Glowacki had an expectation
of being employed by B.E.S.T. at the time of his ori-
ginal vote to approve the grant, so this vote would
not appear to be in violation of the Act or create an
appearance of a conflict of interest.
Conclusion: As a public official, Glowacki must avoid
the appearance of a conflict of interest by abstaining
from voting on projects when he has a reasonable expecta-
tion of being asked to work on the project. Because
Glowacki apparently did not have any such expectation
with regard to the UDAG project or B.E.S.T. at the time
of the vote in question, his vote for the project did
not violate the Ethics Act.
Donald J. Rogala, Esquire
October 30, 1981
Page 3
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 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
Attachment
7843
Sincerely,
ndra S.
General C
ristianson
unsel