HomeMy WebLinkAbout87-522 LeberSTATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG, PA 17120
TELEPHONE: (717) 783 -1610
March 17, 1987
ADVICE OF COUNSEL
Mr. Jeff Leber, Esquire
P.O. Box 310, Courthouse Square 87-522
1 East Third Street
Coudersport, PA 16915
Re: School Directors, Participation, Hospitalization Program
Dear Mr. Leber:
This responds to your letter of February 13, 1987, wherein you requested
the advice of the State Ethics Commission.
Issue: Whether the members of a school district board of directors may
participate, at their own expense, in a hospitalization program in which the
school district is involved.
Facts: You advise that you serve as solicitor for a local school district in
Potter County Pennsylvania. The employees of this school district are
currently enrolled in a group insurance program providing Blue Cross and Blue
Shield medical and hospitalization coverage. The plan, was contracted for by
the intermediate unit covering the local area. Various members of the board
of directors of the local school district in which you represent are receiving
coverage as members of that group. You advise that each director pays to the
school district an amount necessary for his or her coverage. No contributions
to this program are made by the local school district. The directors did not
participate or otherwise enter into the contract for the provisions of these
benefits as such was accomplished by the intermediate unit. You have
requested the advice of the State Ethics Commission regarding whether the
Ethics Act presents any prohibitions upon the activities of the school
directors under the foregoing circumstances.
Discussion: Members of local school boards are clearly public officials as
that term is defined in the State Ethics Act. 65 P.S. §402. As such, their
conduct must conform to the requirements of the State Ethics Act. Blaney,
84 -003.
Generally, the State Ethics Act provides as follows:
Mr. Jeff Leber, Esquire
March 17, 1987
Page 2
Section 3. Restricted activities.
(a) No public official or public employee shall use his
public office or any confidential information received
through his holding public office to 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).
Within the above provision of law, this Commission has, in the past,
determined that a public official may not use his position in order to obtain
any financial gain other than the compensation that is provided for by law.
As a result of this particular provision of law, the Commission has determined
that insurance benefits of the type identified herein would be a financial
gain within the provisions of the State Ethics Act. See Cowie, 84 -010;
Synowski v. Hazle Township, Pa. Commw. Ct. , 500 A.2d 1282, (1986). As
such, public officials cannot use their position to obtain these types of
benefits unless such are part of the compensation provided for by law.
Generally, in making a determination as to whether such benefits are part of
the compensation provided for by law, the Commission has, in the past,
reviewed the various codes or other enabling legislation that provide for
public official compensation. In a number of cases, the Commission has
determined that township supervisors, could not receive such benefits unless
certain circumstances were present. See Hunt, 384R. Additionally, the
Commission has determined that borough officials would also be prohibited from
receiving such benefits. Domalakes, 85 -010.
The Commission; however; has a1'so determined "'tfiat` would appear to
be no prohibition upon such public officials participating at their own
expense in a group health, hospitalization or medicial insurance program in
which their local governmental body is involved. See Domalakes, 85 -010. In
the instant sitution, in light of the fact that the local school directors are
participating in this program at their own expense, and in light of the fact
that the school district is not contributing any public funds on their behalf,
and in the Tact that tie directors did not p , .pate in the
creation of this benefit, it would appear to be no prohibition upon their
participation in this program. There are no prior Ethics Commission opinions
which would indicate that such would be prohibited under these circumstances.
Conclusion: There would appear to be no prohibition in the instant situation
upon members of a board of school directors participation in a group health
and hospitalization program when such directors participate at their own
expense. The directors were not responsible and did not create or otherwise
participate in the purchase of these benefits by the school district. As
such, there would appear to be no prohibition upon their participation in this
program under the State Ethics Act.
Mr. Jeff Leber, Esquire
March 17, 1987
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.
, r r , r 1
- n' rt - n n
• 9 r'i
Si
oh n
on no
Acti g General Counsel