Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout82-558 TorlidasWilliam L. Torlidas, P.H.D. Superintendent South Park School District 2178 Ridge Road Library, PA 15129 Dear Superintendent Torlidas: Mailing Address: STATE ETHICS COMMISSION P.O. BOX 1 179 HARRISBURG, PA 17108 TELEPHONE: (717) 783 -1610 June 29, 1982 ADVICE OF COUNSEL 82 -558 RE: School Directors, Union Negotiations, Abstention This responds to your communication of May 6, 1982 in which you requested advice from the State Ethics Commission. Issue: You request information as to whether a possible conflict is presented where members of a school board have relatives on the school district faculty or as members of the admininstative offices of the school district and are requested to participate in contract negotiations between the teachers union and the school board. Facts: As superintendent for the South Park School Board you indicate that one of the directors (Roy Bruno) has a wife who is a member of the school district faculty. Another school director (John Broglie) has a married daughter and a son who are not living in his household but who are serving the school district in the capacity of a member of the faculty and a middle school principal respec- tively. Neither of Mr. Broglie's children live with him or are dependent upon him. The South Park School Board is currently negotiating with the teacher's union and is planning strategy sessions in connection with these negotiations. State Ethics Commission • 308 Finance Building • Harrisburg, Pennsylvania William L. Torlidas, P.H.U. June 25, 1982 Page 2 Discussion: School board directors are "public officials" as defined by the Ethics Act, 65 P.S. 402. They are, therefore, prohibited from using their public office to obtain financial gain other than the compensation provided by law for themselves, members of their immediate family or any business with which they might be associated. See 63 P.S. 403(a). The Ethics Act defines "immediate family" as a spouse living in the official's household and minor dependent children. See 65 P.S. 401. Thus, the fact that Director Broglie has a son or daughter who might be affected by the contract negotiations does not per se present any problem under Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act. However, Director Bruno would be in a position under Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act to gain financially (through his wife's salary and fringe benefit increases) from his use of his vote for the benefit of his "immediate family." In addition, school directors would be bound by the directive of the Ethics Act that they should avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest with the public trust as prohibited by Section 1 of the Ethics Act. See 65 P.S. 401. Under Section 1`it has generally been held that the spouses of faculty members must not directly or indirectly approve their spouse's particular contract or amendments thereto. See Reid, 82 -520. In addition, the Commission has indicated that where a particular wage or salary increase is being suggested for a brother of a public official, abstention is also required as to that particular vote. Leete, 82 -005. Thus, each Director must likewise abstain from voting to grant his spouse or children any form of individual benefit, such as a sabatical'or pay rise or taking disciplinary action involving his spouse or children as individuals. There is, however, nothing that would prohibit the board members from voting on contracts or other policy measures that would affect faculty members or administrative personnel as a group or as a whole and in which the only benefit accrued by the member's spouse or children would be that which would accrue to them in their capacity as faculty /administration members. Stewart, 79 -070. William L. Torlidas, P.H.D. June 25, 1982 Page 3 Each board member should also be cautioned that Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act also prohibits the use of confidential information by a public official to obtain financial gain other than the compensation provided by law. Thus, neither school director may pass along information of a confidential nature -- obtained through strategy sessions -- to his spouse or children so as to enhance those persons' positions in the current contract negotiations. See Reid, supra. Conclusion: The school board members in this instance, within the confines of the Ethics Act, may participate in all activities relating to their duties as directors, including votes on collective bargaining agreements and participating in strategy sessions associated with these negotiations, but are required to abstain from taking any action on any measure which relates specifically to a spouse or child as individuals. A board member may not transmit any information gained through a strategy or negotiation session to a spouse or child if such information could be used by the spouse or child to influence the negotiations or which could be used to the financial benefit of the spouse or the child. 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 /rdp Sincerely, n ra S. General Couvsel Mailing Address: STATE ETHICS COMMISSION P.O. BOX 1 179 HARRISBURG, PA 17108 TELEPHONE: (717) 783 -1610 October 1, 1982 ' James Flaherty, Esquire Baskin & Sears 10th Floor Frick Building Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Re: South Park School District, Adivce No. 82 -558 Dear Mr. Flaherty: • Addendum to Advice 82 -558 This responds to your letter of September 17, 1982, in which you requested some further clarification of Advice No. 82 -558, originally issued as set forth above. Your letter correctly expresses both the intent and extent of the Advice originally issued. Specifically, any Advice rendered under the provisions of the State Ethics Act, 65 P.S. 407 (9)(i), relates only to the duties and responsibilities of an individual under "this act ", that is Act 170 of 1978. As such, the conclusion set forth in Advice No. 82 -558 which discusses the duties and responsibilities of the School Directors is confined to a discussion of and an articulation of those responsibilities as contained in the State Ethics Act. Further, that Advice did not and was not intended to discuss, apply to, or supersede, any provisions of any other statute, including Act 195, 43 P.S. 1101.1801, in particular. As you request in your letter, this clarification will be attached to and made a part of the Advice originally issued in this case. Incidentally, given this clarification, I assume that it will no longer be necessary for the Commission to reconsider the Advice originally issued as you had requested in your letter of July 26, 1982. If you still wish the entire Commission to consider this matter, please advise. Otherwise, with the addition of this letter of clarification to Advice No. 82 -558, as set forth above, we will consider this matter closed. SSC /na cc: Steven S. Russell, Esq. te''td .1 tic CZa,2 andra S. Chr'stianson General Coun el State Ethics Commission • 308 Finance Building • Harrisburg, Pennsylvania