HomeMy WebLinkAbout83-544 MintzMr. Walter S. Mintz
South Manheim Township Supervisor
P.O. Box 6
School Haven, PA 17972
Mailing Address
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
P.O. BOX 1179
HARRISBURG, PA 17108
TELEP) NNE: (717) 783 -1610
May 23, 1983
ADVICE OF COUNSEL
RE: Township Supervisor; Roadmaster; Section 3(b)
Dear Mr. Mintz:
83 -544
This responds to your letter received by the Ethics Commission on March
14, 1983, in which you requested advice from the State Ethics Commission.
Issue: You ask whether it would be a violation of the State Ethics Act to
vote as a supervisor to appoint a certain individual as a township official in
exchange for termination of a law suit against you, continuation of your
employment as Roadmaster, and possible assistance of this individual in your
potential efforts to seek re- election for six more years.
Facts: You are a tcwnship supervisor. A lawsuit brought by ten individuals
to oust you from office is pending. You state that the suit is the direct
result of your past prison and parole record. Your opponents view this record
as an "infamous crime" for which they assert you should be removed from
office.
You state that on March 4, 1983, a Mr. Joseph Orlando became the eighth
township official to resign in the past three years. You further state that
on March 8, 1983, it was suggested that if you were to act to appoint one of
the ten individuals suing you, the law suit would be dropped, you would be
retained as township roadmaster, and you would possibly be assisted in efforts
to be re- elected for another six years.
You state further that on March 9, 1983, you rejected this proposal.
You are here concerned with the propriety, under the Ethics Act, of
voting to appoint any individual in return for dropping the law suit and
future employment.
Discussion: Initially, the Ethics Commission notes that its jurisdiction is
strictly limited by the Ethics Act, 65 P.S. 401 et seq. and, therefore, this
Advice discusses only your duties and obligations under the Act in relation to
the questions presented.
State Ethics Commission • 308 Finance Building • Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
Mr. Walter S. Mintz
May 23, 1983
Page 2
As a township supervisor, you are subject to the restrictions imposed by
the Ethics Act, 65 P.S. §401 et seq. Specifically, we call your attention to
Section 3(a) and 3(b) respectively.
Section 3(a) states that°.
(a) No public official or public employee shall use his
public office or any confidential information received
through his holding public office :o obtain financial gain
other than compensation provided by law for himself, a
member of his immediate family, or a business with which
he is associated. 65 P.S. 403(a).
Likewise, Section 3(b) states that:
(b) No person shall offer or give to a public official or
public employee or candidate for public office or a member
of his immediate family or a business with which he is
associated, and no public official or public employee or
candidate for public office shall solicit or accept,
anything of value, including a gift, loan, political
contribution, reward, or promise of future employment
based on any understanding that the vote official action,
or judgment of the public official or public employee or
candidate for public office would be influenced thereby.
65 P.S. 403(b).
Ire light of these restrictions, the Commission agrees with your
conclusion that your use of public office to appoint any individual in
question in return for a benefit to you (removal of the law suit) or retention
of you as roadmaster, would be a blatant violation of Section 3(a) of the
Ethics Act. The Commission further notes that under Section 3(b), would also
be implicated insofar as you would be accepting several "things of value."
These "things" include the promise of future employment both as a township
supervisor and a roadmaster, and the promise that a lawsuit against you will
be dropped. While the Commission is shocked at the proposal and offers made
to you, the Commission may only instruct you upon your conduct within the
parameters of this Advice. Therefore, you must adhere to your decision and
not accept the offers made to you in violation of Section 3(b) of the Ethics
Act.
You might be best advised to refer to the complaint procedure in Section
8(a) of the Ethics Act 65 P.S. 408(a) to pursue, if you chose, the possible
violations of Section i(b) which your request for Advice implies.
Nr. Walter S. Mintz
May 23, 1983
Page 3
Conclusion: As a township supervisor, you are subject to the restrictions of
the Ethics Act, and in this light, you may neither use your public employment
or any confidential information gained through your holding public office to
benefit yourself; nor may you accept any thing of value on the understanding
that your official action would be influenced thereby. Such "things of value"
include the promise of future employment as either or both a township
supervisor and roadmaster, and the promise that a pending law suit against you
will be dropped.
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. ristianson
General ounsel