HomeMy WebLinkAbout83-521 McFallMr. Alan B. McFall
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
P.O. BOX 1179
HARRISBURG, PA 17108
TELEPHONE: (717) 783 -1610
March 10, 1983
Cassebaum, McFall & Molnar, P.C.
134 Broadway, P.O. Box 147
Bangor, PA 18013
Melling Address:
ADVICE OF COUNSEL
RE: Borough Council; Voting, Brother -in -law
Dear Mr. McFall:
83 -521
This responds to your letter of February 4, 1983, in which you, as
Solicitor for the Borough of Bangor, requested advice for the State Ethics
Commission.
Issue: You ask whether a councilman related through marriage to a candidate
for the appointment as Chief of Police may vote on the appointment.
Facts: The Bangor Borough Council is in the process of selecting a new Chief
of Police.
The brother -in -law of one of the members of the Borough Council is a
candidate for the position. You would like to know whether his relationship
to the candidate poses any restrictions on his voting in the matter.
Discussion: The Ethics Act, 65 P.S. §401 et seq. recognizes that public
office is a public trust and that the financial interests of public officials
should present neither a conflict nor the appearance of a conflict with the
trust. A Borough Council member is a "public official" subject to the
provisions of the Ethics Act. See definitions, 65 P.S. §402.
Section 3(a) of the Act also states that no public official shall use his
public office to obtain financial gain for a member of his immediate family
other than that provided by law. The Ethics Act defines "immediate family" as
"a spouse residing in the person's household and minor dependent children."
While the Commission has extended restrictions to other close family members,
such as non -minor children, siblings, brothers, and sisters as to matters
before the municipality relating to same, the Commission does not have any
precedent which would restrict the actions of one who is related by virtue
of marriage. Thus, your client may, consistently with Section 1 of the Ethics
Act and current Commission precedent, participate in the selection of the
candidate for the police chief's position as described above. We would
recommend that the relationship of the applicant to the Councilman be
disclosed and made part of the public record on this matter.
State Ethics Commission • 308 Finance Building • Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
Mr. Alan B. McFall
March 10, 1983
Page 2
Conclusion: While it is necessary for one who is a public official subject to
the Ethics Act to avoid both a conflict and an appearance of a conflict of
interest when faced with votes concerning a member of his immediate family,
there is no Commission precedent to prohibit from one who is related by virtue
of marriage, voting on an issue when it has been openly and publicly disclosed
that the applicant is so related to the Councilman.
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.
SSC /rdp
Sincerely,
andra S. C'ristianson
General Counsel