Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout82-563 ThomasR. Charles Thomas, Esquire Bozic, Thomas & Johnson Attorneys At Law 908 Diamond Park Meadville, PA 16335 RE: Sadsbury Township and Utility Constructors Dear Mr. Thomas: Mailing Address: STATE ETHICS COMMISSION P.O. BOX 1 179 HARRISBURG, PA 17108 TELEPHONE: (717) 783 -1610 July 23, 1982 ADVICE OF COUNSEL 82 -563 This responds to your letter of June 9, 1982, in which you requested an opinion from the Ethics Commission. Issue: You asked whether it is a conflict of interest, or otherwise improper, for the Supervisors of Sadsbury Township to accept a proposal from Utility Constructors Inc. (hereinafter Utility) that Utility provide brine for Town- ship roads, at no cost, if there is a chance that the Superivsors will be involved in an appeal proceeding in the near future, relating to an amendment of the Township Ordinance which re -zoned land at the request of the Utility for use as a travel trailer park. Facts: Utility Constructors Inc. has offered to dispose of brine from gas wells being drilled in the Township by offering it for application to Township roads, free of charge. The brine would also be made available to any other Crawford County Township on demand. Sadsbury Township, a Township of the Second Class, hereinafter, the Township may soon be involved in an appeal taken by opponents of a re- zoning, who object to an amendment to the Township Ordinance which allowed Utility to use land within the Township for a travel trailer park. The Township Supervisors are concerned that acceptance of the brine might present an appearance of a conflict of interest, should the Board become involved in the appeal process. Discussion: The Ethics Act is concerned with the situations which arise when public officials or employees become involved in business dealings with persons or entities who come before those officials in the course of their public duties. For example, Section 3(c) prohibits public officials or employees from entering into any contracts valued at more than $500 with the governmental body with which they are associated unless the contract is awarded in an open and public process. In this instance, both the gratuitous nature of the transfer and the non - exclusivity of the transaction (the fact that the brine is freely available to other townships who are not party to the State Ethics Commission • 308 Finance Building • Harrisburg, Pennsylvania R. Charles Thomas, Esquire July 23, 1982 Page 2 zoning controversy) make the proposed transaction acceptable. There are no apparent elements of unjust enrichment, adverse interest, or improper use of information acquired through public office present in this instance. Finally, we note that the donation of and use of brine on Township roads does not relate, in any way, to the subject matter of the legal dispute which was before the Supervisors (the re- zoning) or in which the Supervisors may be interested on appeal. There is, therefore, no apparent reason for the Township not to accept the Utility's proposal. Accordingly, we cannot state that it would create an appearance of impropriety by making it seem as if Utility was donating the brine with the understanding or intent that it would affect the objectivity of the Supervisors in their future dealings with Utility. Conclusion: The Ethics Act was created, in part, to forestall transactions involving public employees or officials which tended to enrich those employees or officials, allow them to improperly use information acquired through public office, or create in them an interest adverse to the public interest. There is nothing improper about the Township agreeing to accept road brine, free of charge, which is freely available to other townships, from a party which may be involved in an appeal of interest to the township in the future. The public interest would not be served by prohibiting such an arrangement and the Township may accept this donation without violations of the Ethics Act. We would suggest, however, that the offer /donation by Utility and acceptance by the Township be put on record at a public meeting to forestall any assertion of "surprise" at this transaction. 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. TD /rdp Sincerely, 4,74.41/0 Sandra S. Chri General Counsel 1anson