HomeMy WebLinkAbout82-590 SirottMr. Jack Sirott
220 Radcliffe Street
Box 708
Bristol, PA 19007
Dear Mr. Sirott:
Mailing Address:
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
P.O. BOX 1 179
HARRISBURG, PA 17108
TELEPHONE: (717) 783 -1610
November 30, 1982
ADVICE OF COUNSEL
RE: Abstention, Child, Dependent, Non -Minor
82 -590
This responds to your letter of September 10, 1982, in which you
requested advice from the State Ethics Commission.
Issue: May a member of the Water Authority vote on the issue of employment
between that Authority and his child?
Facts: A member of the Water Authority, an appointed official, would like to
vote on whether the authority shall employ his child, who, although no longer
a minor, is financially dependent upon that parent for support and resides in
the same house.
Discussion: Non - compensated appointed officials such as Authority Board
members had been generally excluded from the definition of "public official"
under the Ethics Act (65 P.S. 402) until the Supreme Court's ruling in
Snider v. State Ethics Commission, Pa. , 436 A.2d 593 (1981) cast
doubt upon that exclusion. While the Commission has not finally ruled upon
the impact of this decision and has not held un- compensated members of
Authorities to be "public officials ", we will provide our response assuming
the member is compensated. If not compensated, the member need not
mandatorily this Advice, but this Advice merely constitutes our
non - binding discussion. A public official, must abide by the requirements of
the Ethics Act including avoiding actual conflicts of interest and the
appearance of such conflicts of interest. 65 P.S. §401.
In this regard, a public official must generally abstain from voting on
whether his governmental body shall hire his child or not. While Section 2 of
the Act defines "immediate family" as including a spouse residing in the
person's household and minor dependent children, the Commission does not feel
compelled to limit the question of abstention so narrowly. Leete, 82 -005.
State Ethics Commission • 308 Finance Building • Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
Mr. Jack Sirott
November 30, 1982
Page 2
As stated above, the Act requires in Section 1 that even the appearance
of a conflict of interest must be avoided. Thus, if your client is a public
official as a member of the Water Authority and votes on the employment of his
child, who lives with and is financially dependent upon him, this would
constitute an appearance of a conflict, to be removed only by abstention from
voting.
Conclusion: If your client is compensated he is a public official and the
concepts of Section 1 of the Ethics Act apply in this situation. Thus, a
parent /Water Authority member, if he is a public official, may not vote on the
employment of his non - minor, financially dependent child. In keeping with the
letter and spirit of the Ethics Act, the Commission advises that your client
must, if he is a public official, or if not, but voluntarily accepts this
Advice, should, abstain from participating in discussion, including voting on
this issue and places the reasons for such abstention on the public record in
order to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest.
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 will be scheduled and a formal
Opinion from the Commission will be issued. Any such appeal must be made, in
writing, to the Commission within 15 days of service of this Advice pursuant
to 51 Pa. Code 2.12.
KW /rdp
Sincerely,
S ndra S. Chr' tianson
General Counsel