HomeMy WebLinkAbout82-546 DiceMr. Bruce E. Dice
Zimmer & Dice
583 Allegheny Avenue
Oakmont, PA 15139
Dear Mr. Dice:
Mailing Address:
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
P.O. BOX 1 179
HARRISBURG, FA 17108
TELEPHONE: (717) 783 -1610
May 24, 1982
ADVICE OF COUNSEL
82 -546
RE: Plum Borough Tax Collector - Private Insurance Consultant for Municipal
Authority
This responds to your letter of April 14, 1982 in which you requested
advice from the State Ethics Commission.
Issue: Does a Borough tax collector's serving, in his private capacity, as an
insurance consultant for the Plum Borough Municipal Authority present a
conflict of interest in violation of the State Ethics Act?
Facts: You represent the Plum Borough Municipal Authority (herinafter, the
Authority). You inform the Commission that Mr. William Werley is presently
the elected tax collector for the Borough of Plum (hereininafter, the
Borough). His duties include collection of real estate taxes. Mr. Werley is
not a Council member; nor is he a member of the Authority.
The Authority has retained Mr. Werley, in his private capacity, as an
insurance consultant. In this capacity, he obtains various proposals for the
insurance coverage, reviews same and then makes recommendations to the
Authority. Finally, he places the insurance for the Authority.
Discussion: As an elected tax collector for the Borough, Mr. Werley is a
public official subject to the provisions of the Ethics Act, 65 P.S. §401 et
seq.
Section 3(c) of the Act states in part:
No public official ... shall enter into any contract
valued at $500 or more with a governmental body unless the
contract has been awarded through an open and public
process, including prior public notice and subsequent
public disclosure of all proposals considered and
contracts awarded. 65 P.S. 403(c)
State Ethics Commission • 308 Finance Building • Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
Mr. Bruce E. Dice
May 24, 1982
Page 2
With °espect to the above- quoted conflict of interest provision, the
Ethics Commission has held that the reference to "a governmental body" means
the governmental body with which the public official is associated. Williams,
79 -012; Barbin, 79 -038. In this case, the governmental body with which Mr.
Werley is associated is not the Authority but the Borough. The Authority and
the Borough are legally separate and distinct entities. Because the Authority
and the Borough are separate entities, Section 3(c) is inappli: able to Mr.
Werley's s2rvice as a private insurance consultant in relation to the
Authority.
Of course, Mr. Wereley is still Lcund by the Ethics Act, including the
restrictions of Section 3(a) against his using his public office or any confi-
dential information received therefrom to obtain financial gain other than
compensation provided by law. 65 P.S. §403(a). Thus, Mr. Wereley could not
use his post as tax collector to secure the insurance consultant job, for
example,
Conclusion: Because the Plum Borough Municipal Authority is not the govern-
mental body with which Mr. Werley, as tax collector for the Borough, is asso-
ciated, the Ethics Act does not limit or restrict his ability to provide
private consultant services to the Authority, while simultaneously serving as
Borough tax collector.
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.
F /rdp
Sincerely,
ndra S. hrrstianson
General Coun el