Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout83-590 MajochaMs. Louise Majocha, Supervisor Allegheny Township RD 1, Box 818A New Kensington, PA 15068 Mating Address. STATE ETHICS COMMISSION P.O. BOX 1 179 HARRISBURG, PA 17108 TELEPHONE: (717) 783 -1610 September 8, 1983 ADVICE OF COUNSEL 83 -590 RE: Expression of Opinion, Disqualification From Participation Dear Ms. Majocha: This responds to your letter of August 18, 1983, in which you requested advice from the State Ethics Commission. Issue: You ask whether under certain circumstances you may be disqualified from participation in the Township's decision in particular matters. Facts: You indicate that following the death of Supervisor Milton Rimmel, on July 2, 1983, you were appointed to fill the position as Supervisor for Allegheny Township. As a Supervisor you attended a July 11, 1983 meeting of the Supervisors. At that meeting, when it was time for the visitors to speak, you expressed your view and opinion on the issue of whether the Township should permit the building of a slaughter house on a site directly across from River Forest Country Club and Golf Course and a community of homes within the Township. At that time you.made the statement that "this is terrible having a beautiful place like River Forest on one side of the road and a slaughter house on the other." The Township will reconsider or continue to consider the question of the building of the slaughter house and the Attorney for the slaughter house, Thomas Ceraso, because of the statement referenced above, believes that you should refrain from the decision - making process on this matter. He insists that this statement is obvious evidence of a predetermination on your part of the issues to be presented to the Township and it would be, therefore, inappropriate for you to participate further in the Township's decision - making process on this point. State Ethics Commission • 308 Finance Building • Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Ms. Louise Majocha, Supervisor September 8, 1983 Page 2 Discussion: As a Supervisor in Allegheny Township, you are clearly a "public official" as that term is defThed in the State Ethics Act. As such, your conduct should conform to the requirements of the State Ethics Act. These requirements include that you not use your public office for personal gain -- see Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 P.S. 403(a) -- and the general prohibition that you may not use your public office for personal financial gain Section 1 of the Ethics Act. Under the circumstances described above, there is no evidence, indication or factual basis upon which to conclude that your participation as a Township Supervisor in the Township's decision relative to the building of the slaughter house would in any way be precluded on the premise that such participation would constitute an effort to use your office of personal gain or to otherwise "mix" your personal financial interests with those responsibilities you bear as a public official` As such, therefore, there does not appear to be any prohibition under the Ethics Act against your participation on the facts set forth above. However, I must note that the question of your participation in this matter based upon the argument that you have "predetermined" this issue because of your statement referenced above, is a question which is fundamentally not within the jurisdiction of the Ethics Act or Commission to resolve. Specifically, as I understand this argument it is basically that the individual applicant (slaughter house) will be denied "due process" if its case is not heard before an impartial decision - making body, and that because of your statement you may not be considered to be an impartial participant in that body's decision - making process. However, if this is the argument, the Ethics Commission has no role in providing the answer to this question because our jurisdiction is strictly limited to determinations of whether or not your duties and responsibilities under the Ethics Act have been met. As I state above, the facts as presented do not even appear to implicate the Ethics Act. Thus, given this lack of applicability of the Ethics Act and our lack of jurisdiction to address any of the questions that are of a general "due process" nature, we cannot respond as to whether or not you may or may not participation on the assertion that expression of your views on this matter have constituted a "predetermination" of the matter, so as to effectively deny the applicant general "due process." Conclusion: The Ethics Act is not implicated in the above situation since there is no reason to believe or factual basis to state that participation in this question would constitute a conflict of itnerest or an appearance of a conflict between your financial interests and the public trust. Thus, the question is more fundamentally addressed as one of "due process" over which the Ethics Commission has no jurisdiction and will make no conclusion. Ms. Louise Majocha, Supervisor September 8, 1983 Page 3 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, Sandra S. Chr,stianson General Counsel