HomeMy WebLinkAbout87-533 BoyleSandra D. Boyle
Box 31, 6 Howe Street
Nicholson, PA 18446
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG, PA 17120
TELEPHONE: (717) 783 -1610
March 30, 1987
ADVICE OF COUNSEL
87 -533
Re: Member School Board, Participation in Matter Involving Spouse
Dear Ms. Boyle:
This responds to your letter of March 3, 1987, wherein you requested the
advice of the State Ethics Commission.
Facts: You currently serve as the solicitor of Lackawanna Trail School
District. You advise that Mrs. Ruth Seamans is currently serving as secretary
of the Lackawanna Trail School District. She is also an elected member of the
school board. She has served in that capacity since November 1983. On
October 15, 1984, the school board authorized the district to enter into
contracts with bus drivers serving the school district for 1984 -1985 school
year. The motion was approved by roll call vote of 7 -1 -1, with Ruth Seamans
abstaining. One member of the board, who was then serving a:, secretary,
signed the contracts for the 1984 -1985 school year. On November 5, 1986, the
school board, once again, authorized the execution of contracts for bus
drivers who were to service the school district for that year. This measure
was approved by roll call vote of 8 to 1 with Ruth Seamans abstaining. You
further advised that Mrs. Seamans signed all of the contracts for the
1985 -1986 school year. You have requested the advice of the State Ethics
Commission regarding whether Mrs. Seamans in her capacity as secretary may
sign contracts for bus services, if one of the bus contractors is her spouse.
Discussion: As an elected member of a local school board, Mrs. Seamans is
clearly a public official as that term is defined in the State Ethics Act. 65
P.S. §402. As such, her conduct must conform to the requirements of that law.
See Weaver, 85 -014; Jersey Shore Area School District v. Bitner, 81 Pa. Commw.
Ct. 0 , 472 A.2d 1183,(1984).
The State Ethics Act provides as follows:
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).
Sandra D. Boyle
March 30, 1987
Page 2
Within the above provision of law, no public official may participate or
otherwise use his public position in order to obtain a financial gain for
either himself or a member of his immediate family. A member of one's
immediate family is defined as follows:
•
Section 2. Definitions.
"Immediate family." A spouse residing in the person's
household and minor dependent children. 65 P.S. 402.
In addition to the above, a public official may not use confidential
information obtained in his public position for similar purposes. Generally,
this Commission has, in the past, interpreted this provision of law to require
the public official's abstension in matters that relate to a member of his
immediate family as defined above, or in matters, or in which the official may
directly benefit. Blaney, 84 -003. The Commission has also ruled, however,
that a public official may participate or otherwise authorize the payment of
bills by his governmental body even though thay may involve a member of his
immediate family, if that official has not participated in the governmental
body's actions leading to the contractual arrangements, through which such
bills were incurred. See Stewart, 79 -070.
In the instant situation, you have provided information indicating that
Mrs. Seamans has abstained from the school board's actions in contracting with
the bus services. A review of the information submitted indicates that, at
the time that the school board voted to authorize the contracts in 1984 -1985,
Mrs. Seamans abstained from participating in that matter as a member of the
school board and also was not involved in signing the contracts, in that she
was not secretary of the board at that time. Additionally, the records that
you have provided, indicate that in the 1985 -86 action of the school board,
the amount of money to be paid to each individual contractor was specifically
set forth at the time the school board voted to take that action. Mrs.
Seamans, once again, abstained from participating in the boards decision.
Thus, there would have been no implications of the State Ethics Act in
relation to her actions as a member of the school board when the board voted
to authorize the execution of these contracts.
In relation to the issue of whether she as the secretary may sign the
contract regarding her spouse, if the contract executed with Mr. Seamans was
merely a formalization of the action that had already been authorizedd by the
members of the board during the meeting and as long as the amount oi money set
forth in that contract was the same amount as authorized by the beard during
their official vote, then the fact that Mrs. Seamans was the official
responsible for executing the contract would not appear to violate the State
Ethics Act. This is so, especially in light of this Commission's prior
decision in Stewart, supra. In that decision, the State Ethics Commission
Sandra D. Boyle
March 30, 1987
Page 3
determined that, as long as a member of the school board did not participate
in the board's official actions leading to the contracting, the individual
official could participate in the payment of routine or undisputed bills
relating to that contract.
In addition to the foregoing, the State Ethics Act allows this Commission
to address other areas of possible conflict. 65 P.S. §403(d). The parameters
of the types of activities encompassed by this particular provision of law,
may generally be determined through a review of the intent and purpose of the
Ethics Act. Generally, the act was promulgated in order to ensure the public
that the financial interests of their public officals do not conflict with the
public trust. In this respect, the act provides as follows:
Section 1. Purpose.
The Legislature hereby declares that public office is a
public trust and that any effort to realize personal
financial gain through public office other than
compensation provided by law is a violation of that trust.
In order to strengthen the faith and confidence of the
people of the State in their government, the Legislature
further declares that the people have a right to be
assured that the financial interests of holders of or
candidates for public office present neither a conflict
nor the appearance of a conflict with the public trust.
Because public confidence in government can best be
sustained by assuring the people of the impartiality and
honesty of public officials, this act shall be liberally
construed to promote complete disclosure. 65 P.S. 401.
While the State Ethics Act and the prior opinions of this commission, would
appear not to require Mrs. Seamans abstention from signing the contract in
question as a secretary of the school board, such should be considered in
light of the above provision of the State Ethics Act. In this respect, both
the intent and the spirit of the law maybe advanced.
Finally, we are assuming for the purpose of this advice that the school
director in question has no financial interests in the business of her spouse.
This Commission has, in a prior opinion, indicated that in light of certain
prohibitions upon school directors from having interests in contracts with the
school district, a school director would be prohibited also under the Ethics
Act from receiving a financial gain from the district, in that such would be
prohibited by law. See Weaver, 85 -014.
Sandra D. Boyle
March 30, 1987
Page 4
Conclusion: The State Ethics Act would not prohibit a school director who is
also secretary of the school board from signing a contract which relates to
her spouse, as long as she abstains from the school district decision to award
that contract. While the Ethics Act would not prohibit such activity, such
should be considered in light of the intent and spirit of the law.
Additionally, this advice is based upon the assumption that the school
director in question has no financial interests in the business activities of
her spouse.
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.
Sin • e y),
oh ntino
Act • General Counsel