Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout82-520 ReidMeiling Address: • STATE ETHICS COMMISSION P.O. BOX 1179 HARRISBURG, PA 17108 TELEPHONE: (717) 783 -1810 February 22, 1982 ADVICE OF COUNSEL Mr. Derek J. Reid Eastburn and Gray 60 East Court Street Doylestown, PA 18901 RE: Section 3; School Director; Spouse, Teacher 82 -520 Dear Mr. Reid: This responds to your letter of December 7, 1981 in which you, as Solicitor for the Board of School Directors of the New Hope - Solebury School District, requested advice from the State Ethics Commission. Issues: How does the Ethics Act affect the ability of a School Director, whose spouse is a tenured professional employee in the District, to vote on any issue where the benefit to the spouse may be a direct one? What limitations does the Act impose upon the. Director when the benefit to the spouse may be less direct, in such areas as: 1. Budget adoption, which necessarily includes funding professional employee contracts? 2. Board meeting approval of the Treasurer's report, which necessarily includes approval of the payment of teachers' salaries? 3. Participation in the collective bargaining process, or knowledge of negotiation positions and strategies? Facts: Wayne Anderson is a newly elected School Board member of the New Hope- Solebury School District in New Hope, Pennsylvania. Mr. Anderson's spouse is a tenured professional employee of the District. State Ethics COmmissi0n • 308 Finance Building • Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Mr. Derek J. Reid February 22, 1982 Page 2 In the performance of its duties, the School Board on which Mr. Anderson sits may consider, discuss, and vote on issues, such as teacher contracts and collective bargaining agreements, which affect his spouse vis -a -vis her employment by the District. Discussion: As a member of the New Hope - Solebury School District Board of Directors, Mr. Anderson is a public official as defined by the Ethics Act, 65 P.S. §401 et seq. As such, he may not use his public office to obtain financial gain other than compensation provided by law for a member of his immediate family. 65 P.S. §403(a). The Ethics Act includes a spouse as a member of the public official's "immediate family." To avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest prohibited by Section 1 of the Ethics Act, Mr. Anderson must not directly or indirectly approve his wife's particular contract or amendments thereto. In the same way, Mr. Anderson must abstain from voting to grant or deny his spouse indivi- dual or specific benefits, such as the award of an extra duty responsibility contract, reimbursement for expenses incurred, the grant of a sabbatical or other leave of absence, etc. Such particular actions on which abstention would be required would also include discipline, in general, or promotions. The Ethics Act would not prohibit Mr. Anderson's participation in Board decisions of a broad, general appli- cation or significance, if those decisions benefit his spouse solely because of her employment in the District and only to the same extent as they affect or benefit her professional colleagues. Examples of these types of deci- sions include, as you mentioned budget adoption, approval of the Treasurer's report, and participation in the collective bargaining process, as well as the routine payment of contractual obligations. Stewart, 79 -070. Of course, no public official may accept anything of value on the understanding that his official conduct or judgment would be influenced thereby. See 65 P.S. 403(b). Likewise, no public official may use confidential informa- tion acquired through his public office for his personal benefit or that of his immediate family. Thus, in contract negotiations, for example, Mr. Anderson could not use such information or pass same to his wife if this would operate to her financial benefit. Mr. Anderson could not accept nor could his wife give him as a public official anything of value with the understanding that his actions or official judgment with respect to neogtiations with the professional employees would be influenced thereby. Mr. Derek J. Reid February 22, 1982 Page 3 Conclusion: As a public official, Mr. Anderson's conduct in his official capacity must conform with the Ethics Act and must not present even the appearance of a conflict of interest. To avoid such appearances in connection with his spouse's employment by the same School District in which he is a Director, Mr. Anderson must abstain from voting on any issue that would apply to or affect his spouse individt;:ally. Examples of this type of issue include proposals to 9 or deny the spouse an extra duty responsibility contra -t or a leave of absence from her teaching duties, discipline, or other matters where she is the direct and individual reci- pient of ::he approval /action. Mr. Anderson can still participate, without conflict, in Board decisions regarding general teaching contracts, budget adoptions, approval of the Treasurer's report, and the management- employee collective bargaining process, within the general parameters outlined above. 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. BF /rdp Sincerely, andra S'�., hristianson General Counsel