Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout81-647 PotashMr. Charles Potash Wister, Pearlstine, Talone Craig & Garrity 515 Swede Street Norristown, PA 19401 Mailing Address: STATE ETHICS COMMISSION P.O. BOX 1179 • HARRISBURG, PA 17108 TELEPHONE: (717) 783 -1610 December 4, 1981 ADVICE OF COUNSEL RE: School Board Directors, Restricted Activities State Ethics Commission • 308 Finance Building • Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 81 -647 Dear Mr. Potash: This Advice responds to your letter of October 27, 1981, in which you requested an opinion from the State Ethics Commission. Issue: You question whether a real or potential conflict of interest, violative of the Ethics Act, might exist between two Upper Dublin School District Board Members and the Board itself, with respect to a proposed sale of school . property by the Board to Temple University. Facts: Subsequent to the closing of the Upper Dublin Senior High School, the Upper Dublin School District Board of Directors are contemplating the possibility of selling the facility to Temple University. John K. Easton, Jr. and Robert F. McCammon, Jr. currently serve as Upper Dublin School Directors. Mr. Easton is a Vice - President of the Provident National Bank. One F. Eugene Dixon, a member of the Board of Directors at Provident National, also serves as Chairman of the Board of Trustees at Temple. Mr. McCammon is an officer of Philadelphia National Bank (PNB), which is a leading lending bank of Temple. Mr. Charles Potash December 4, 1981 Page 2 An interest group known as the "Concerned Citizens of Upper Dublin" has alleged that the relationship between Mr. Easton and Mr. Dixon and the relationship between Mr. McCammon and PNB reflect potential conflicts of interests. You request advice as to what, if any, conflicts these relationships represent in terms of the State Ethics.Act. Discussion: As elected officials in a political subdivision of the State Legislature, members of the Upper Dublin School District Board of Directors are public officials subject to the provisions of the State Ethics Act. 65 P.S. Section 401 et seq. Section 3(b) of the Act states: No person shall offer or give to a public official or public employee or candidate for public office or a member of his immediate family or a business with which he is asso- ciated, and no public official or public employee or candidate for public office shall solicit or accept, anything of value, including a gift, loan, political contribu- tion, reward, or promise of future employ- ment based on any understanding that the vote, official action, or judgment of the public official or public employee or candidate for public office would be influenced thereby. The letter of October 12, 1981, to the Secretary of the Upper Dublin School Board from the "Concerned Citizens of Upper Dublin," however, has not alleged any of the improprieties delineated in 3(b). Furthermore, the relationships between Mr. Easton and Mr. Dixon, and between Mr. McCammon and PNB show neither an actual nor a potential conflict as would violate Section 3(b). Mr. Charles Potash December 4, 1981 Page 3 As Mr. Easton points out, Mr. Dixon probably doesn't know who Mr. Easton is. The relationship is too tenuous to justify finding a violation of the Act's provisions relating to restricted activities. Similarly, with respect to Mr. McCammon's position, no discussion about the proposed sale has occurred between the director and bank officials at PNB, nor between the Director and Temple's representatives. Finally, neither Mr. Easton nor Mr. McCammon, in regard to their respective positions as Provident vice - president and PNB officer, act in a representative capacity before the Dublin Board so as to make the restrictions of Section 3(e) applicable. Conclusion: The Ethics Act does apply to the activities of Mr. Easton and Mr. McCammon in their capacities as School Directors. No provision therein, however, applies that would make their concurrent positions with Provident Bank, PNB, and /or Temple University violative of the Act. No conflicts of interests are presented. This Advice notes that, as of this date, the Commission has not received the communication from a Mr. George Campbell, to which you referred and promised to forward to the Commission, in your letter of October 27, 1981. Consequently, this is not covered by this response. If you wish us to address this relationship without further detail from Mr. Campbell, please advise. 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. Mr. Charles Potash December 4, 1981 Page 4 SSC/ lma 7838 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.,. Sincerely, 4 Sandra S. ristianson General Counsel