HomeMy WebLinkAbout87-569 FeeseMr. Brett 0. Feese, Esquire
433 Market Street
P.O. Box 7
Williamsport, PA 17703
Dear Mr. Feese:
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
P.O. BOX 11470
HARRISBURG, PA 17108 -1470
TELEPHONE (717) 783 -1610
May 19, 1987
ADVICE OF COUNSEL
87 -569
Re: Public Official, Participating, Matter Involving Church In Which Official
Is Member
This responds to your letter of May 5, 1987, wherein you requested the
advice of the State Ethics Commission.
Facts: You advise that you currently serve as solicitor for Montoursville
Borough in Lycoming County, Pennsylvania. On behalf of one of the members of
borough council, Donald Peace, you have requested the advice of the State
Ethics Commission in relation to the foregoing situation. On June 8, 1987,
you advise that the borough will hold a public hearing to consider an
amendment to its zoning ordinance. A church, which is located in the borough,
requested that the borough amend its current zoning ordinance to change the
designated use of a particular parcel of ground to permit the establishment of
churches. If the zoning amendment is passed, the church will purchase the
entire commercial /industrial zoned area. Mr. Peace, who is a member of
borough council, is also a member of the church that requested the amendment
to the zoning ordinance. You advise that Mr. Peace is not an officer or
official of that church. Mr. Peace is a member of the congregation and in
this respect you indicate that he would not be receiving any benefit of a
personal nature in relation to this situation. You have requested, however,
the advice of the State Ethics Commission because you advise that the issue is
one that may create some controversy.
Discussion: As a member of borough council, the individual involved in this
situation is clearly a public official as that term is defined in the State
Ethics Act. 65 P.S. §402. As such, his conduct must conform to the
requirements of the Ethics Act. Domalakes, 85 -010. Generally, the Ethics Act
provides as follows:
Mr. Brett 0. Feese
May 19, 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, as can be seen, no public official may use
his position in order to obtain a financial gain for himself or a business
with which he is associated. Business with which one is associated is defined
in the Act as follows:
Section 2. Definitions.
"Business with which he is associated." Any business in
which the person or a member of the person's immediate
family is a director, officer, owner, employee or holder
of stock. 65 P.S. 402.
In the instant situation, it is clear that Mr. Peace is not associated with
the church, even if it were to be considered a business, and that he is
neither an employee, stockholder, owner or officer thereof. As such, the
above provision of the State Ethics Act would not appear to prevent Mr.
Peace's participation in this matter.
Additionally, and we note for the sake of being complete, the Ethics Act
permits this Commission to address other areas of possible conflicts of
interest. Generally, the Act was promulgated in order to ensure the public
that the financial interests of their officials do not conflict with the
public trust. 65 P.S. §401. In the instant situation, there does not appear
to be any financial interest, on behalf of Mr. Peace, which would be affected
by his participation in this matter. Generally, public officials are called
upon on occasion to particpate in matters that may to some extent effect them
as a citizen of the community. This type of indirect interest, however, is
not the type that was invisioned as being adverse. This Commission, in the
past, has reviewed a similar issue and has determined that a township
supervisor who was a member and not an officer of a civic organization would
not violate the State Ethics Act by participating in a matter regarding the
rezoning of property owned by that civic organization. See, Martin No. 41;
Bircker No. 42.
Mr. Brett 0. Feese
May 19, 1987
Page 3
Conclusion: The State Ethics Act would not prohibit the participation of a
borough council member in a matter involving a zoning ordinance for a church
of which he is a member. The individual is not an officer in the religious
organization and further has no financial interest which would be affected by
the instant matter. As such, the State Ethics Act would present no
prohibitions upon his participation in this matter.
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.
Sinc
ohn J nti o
Actin General Counsel