Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout81-636 CorneliusMailing Address: STATE ETHICS COMMISSION P.O. BOX 1 179 HARRISBURG, PA 17108 TELEPHONE: (717) 783 -1610 November 6, 1981 ADVICE OF COUNSEL Richard Cornelius Bradford County Housing Authority Blossburg, PA 16912 RE: Section 1, Housing Authority Member Dear Mr. Cornelius: State Ethics Commission • 308 Finance Building • Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 81 -636 This responds to your letter of September 8, 1981, in which you as the Executive Director of the Bradford County Housing Authority, requested an opinion from the Ethics_ Commission. Issue: You asked for advice as to whether it is a conflict of interest under the Ethics Act for a former member of the board of a housing authority to receive payments from the Authority made on behalf of a third party. Facts: You informed us that Thomas A. Calkins, III was a member of the board of the Bradford County Housing Authority until he resigned on September 4, 1981. Calkins owns one -third interest in a mobile home park. A client of the Housing Authority wants to rent a mobile home in Ca!_kin's park. The client will pay 25% of her income for rent and utilities; the Authority will pay the remain- ing 75% of thoses expenses for the client. Under the proposed contract the Authority will make 12 payments of $124 a month to the owners of the park, one of whom is Calkins. Your agency approved this arrangement and is now seeking a waiver of the federal Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requirements. Calkins did not vote on, negotiate or develop the contract between TCE and the Authority or represent TCE or the tenant before the Authority. The Authority did not pre- approve the contract before Calkins resigned. Richard Cornelius November 5, 1981 Page 2 Discussion: Initially we note that the jurisdiction of the Ethics Commission is strictly limited by the Ethics Act itself, 65 P.S. Section 401 et seq. This Advice is only an interpretation of the Ethics Act and will not discuss federal law or regulations which may affect the situation you describe. The Ethics Act proscribes conflicts of interest and the use of public office to obtain personal financial gain. 65 P.S. Section 401. The Commission has said that a conflict of interest exists "when an individual represents two or more persons whose interest is adverse to each other." Alfano, 80 -007. TCE and the Authority have adverse interests in that TCE wants to profit on its rentals while the Authority wants to procure housing at the lowest possible cost. In the facts presented to us, however, it does not appear that Calkins represented or will represent TCE or the tenant before the Authority. Nor does it seem that Calkins could have used his public office to obtain financial gain for himself or his business, TCE. The Authority did not pre- approve the contract to TCE so Calkins could not use his office to vote on the contract. Because Calkins was not able to use his public office or vote to benefit his business, there is no violation of the Ethics Act in the contract between TCE and the Authority. Conclusion: The Ethics Act proscribes conflicts of in- terest where an individual represents two persons with adverse interests. Calkins did not and will not represent TCE before the Authority and there is no conflict of interest. Nor did Calkins use his post on the Authority to approve the contract with TCE before he resigned. There was no use of public office for personal financial gain or any prohibited representation under the Ethics Act. The Ethics Act does not prohibit the contract between TCE and the Authority. Richard Cornelius November 5, 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 5554 Sncerely, Sandra S. 'ristianson General Co.nsel