HomeMy WebLinkAbout83-631 GovachiniDennis Govachini, Esquire
311 Masonic Building
Ebensburg, PA 15931
Dear Mr. Govachini:
Mailing Address.
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
P.O. BOX 1179
HARRISBURG, PA 17108
TELEPHONE: (717) 783 -1610
December 22, 1983
ADVICE OF COUNSEL
RE: Cambria Township, Auditor, Father -In -Law
83 -631
This responds to your letter of November 30, 1983, in which you, as
Solicitor, requested advice from the State Ethics Commission.
Issue: You ask whether an auditor may be precluded from auditing the records
of the township under certain circumstances.
Facts: You serve as Solicitor in the Township of Cambria, hereinafter the
Township. You write to the Ethics Commission on behalf of the individual who
will be serving on the Board of Supervisors in the Township, having secured
election at the November, 1983, election. You indicate that the Township is a
Second -Class Township in which the newly - elected Supervisor also has a
father -in -law who has been re- elected to serve as Auditor within the Township.
You indicate that the Board of Auditors does, pursuant to the Second -Class
Township Code, set the salaries and compensation for Supervisors when those
individuals are appointed to act as roadmasters.
Further, you indicate that the father -in -law (Auditor) is not a member of
the household of the newly- elected Supervisor.
Discussion: As elected officials; both the newly - elected Supervisor and the
Auditor are to be considered "public officials" as that term is defined in the
State Ethics Act. Thus, both of these individuals would be required to
conform their conduct to the provisions of the Ethics Act. However, there is
nothing in the Ethics Act which declares that it is inherently incompatible or
inconsistent with the Ethics Act for a father -in -law to serve as an Auditor
within the same township as his son-in-law serves as Supervisor.
Additionally, the Ethics Act states that no public official may use his
public office to secure compensation other than if provided by law to the
benefit of himself nor a member of his "immediate family." The Ethics Act
defines the term "immediate family" as including a spouse and minor dependent
children residing in the household of the "public official."
State Ethics Commission • 308 Finance Building • Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
Dennis Govachini, Esquire
December 22, 1983
Page 2
It is clear that the father -in -law (Auditor) is not to be considered a
member of the Supervisor's "immediate family" as those terms are set forth in
the Ethics Act. Accordingly, there would be no obvious violation of Section
3(a) of the Ethics Act if these individuals were to serve simultaneously in
their respective positions and perform the tasks associated with same.
However, Section 3(b) of the Ethics Act also requires that:
(b) No person shall offer or give to a'public officiw; o-
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).
Based upon the provisions cited immediately above, it is clear that
neither of these individuals could attempt to influence the official judgment
or action of the other through any gift, loan, political contribution, etc.
We will assume that there is no such activity in question and we merely cite
the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Ethics Act in an effort to completely
review those provisions which may be applicable to any "person" or "public
official" subject to the Ethics Act.
Finally, even though the auditors and in this case one of the three
Auditors (the father -in -law) must set the salary and compensation of the
Supervisors acting as roadmasters or workers, one of whom is the son -in -law,
if and when this Supervisor acts as a roadmaster or roadworker, there is no
prohibition in the Ethics Act against the Auditor (father -in -lave) acting in
his official capacity and performing his responsibilities under the
Second -Class Township Code under the facts set forth above. This is
especially true where there is no evidence that the auditor (father -in -law)
will be financially benefitted by the setting of this salary and where the
Township experiences no detriment based upon the setting and the collection of
this salary by the Supervisor (son -in -law) if and when he were to act in the
capacity of roadmaster or roadworker.
Conclusion: There is no inherent incompatibility in a father -in -law serving
as an auditor and a,son -in -law serving as a township supervisor under the
circumstances as outlined above.
Dennis Govachini, Esquire
December 22, 1983
Page 3
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,
Sa ra S. Chr stianson
General Counsel