Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout87-615 LedewitzSTATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING P.O. BOX 11470 HARRISBURG, PA 17108 -1470 TELEPHONE (717) 783 -1610 October 14, 1987 ADVICE OF COUNSEL Ms. Stefani Ledewitz 5528 Walnut Street 87 -615 Pittsburgh, PA 15232 Re: Simultaneous Service, Planning Commission Member and Architect Dear Ms. Ledewitz: This responds to your letter of August 11, 1987, in which you requested advice from the State Ethics Commission. Issue: You ask whether, as a planning commission member, as or undertake activity as an architect in a firm that participates s projects which receive funding from the Urban Redevelopment Authority. Facts: You are currently a partner in the architectural firm of Quick Ledewitz Architects which works with a number of private non - profit community development organizations and private developers concerning community improvement projects. Some projects are supported by the Urban Redevelopment Authority, hereinafter URA or other public agencies through subsidies, loans or grants. You are also a member of the Pittsburgh City Planning Commission. You state that the projects, in which you are involved as an architect, do not necessarily come before the planning commission. You state that if such projects would come before the planning commission, you would refrain from participating in deliberations and abstain from voting. You further state that the URA is separate from the planning commission and you are not involved in any decision making of the URA. Currently, ELDEVCO is a community development corporation in the East Liberty neighborhood of Pittsburgh, which is interested in renovating the Hiland Hotel building, an edifice which is an unoccupied four -floor single -room hotel. The proposed renovation would convert the unoccupied hotel into a professional office building with retail uses on the ground floor. You Ms. Stefani Ledewitz October 14, 1987 Page 2 state that it is hoped that the development would serve as a catalyst for building improvements in the surrounding blocks. ELDEVCO has commissioned your architectural firm to provide architectural services for the renovation consisting of designing the improvements, preparing the construction documents and administering the construction contract. Although you note that the project has not come before the planning commission, ELDEVCO has applied to URA for a "streetface" facade improvement grant and low interest loans which would be funded by a community development block grant money. You also note that you anticipate that other situations similar to the Hiland Hotel project might arise and, therefore, request advice as to whether a conflict would exist between your membership on the planning commission and your association with your architectural firm relative to participation in projects that would receive funding from URA. You conclude by asserting that HUD has determined that your participation does not constitute a conflict of interest. Discussion: In your capacity as a member of the Pittsburgh City Planning Commission, you are to be considered a "public official" as that term is defined in the State Ethics Act. See Section 2, State Ethics Act, 65 P.S. 402. As a public official, your conduct must conform to the provisions of the State Ethics Act. The most pertinent provision of the State Ethics Act is Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act 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). Of course, under this provision, you may not use your public position to secure any financial gain or confidential information for the firm Of Quick Ledewitz Architects. However, as outlined above, there does not appear to be a real possibility cf any financial gain or inherent conflict arising if you were to serve both as a public official and as an architect in the firm of Quick Ledewitz Architects . Basically, the Ethics Act does not state that it is inherently incompatible for a public official to serve as an architect for a private architectural firm. The main prohibition under the Ethics Act and Opinions of the Ethics Commission is that you may not serve the interests of two persons, groups, or entities whose interests may be adverse. See Alfano, 80 -007. In the situation outlined above, you would not be serving entities with interests which are adverse to each other. Ms. Stefani Ledewitz October 14, 1987 Page 3 For purposes of this advice, it is assumed that you have not used your public position as a planning commission member or any confidential information relative to the award of the contracts to Quick Ledewitz Architects. Further, as a member of the planning commission, you may not participate nor vote in any matter in which your private architectural firm would have an interest. Thus, although there is no per se prohibition against your simultaneous service, you must observe the restrictions as noted above. Finally, Section 3(b) of the Ethics Act must be referenced in order to provide a complete response to your inquiry. Under Section 3(b) of the Ethics Act cited above, which you must observe, you must neither offer nor accept anything of value on the understanding or with the intention that your official judgment would be influenced thereby. It is assumed that such a situation does not exist here. Reference is made to this Section not to indicate that any such activity has been or will be undertaken but in an effort to provide a complete response to your inquiry. Lastly, it must be noted that the Ethics Commission may only address your question within the purview of the Ethics Act. The Commission may not and will not offer advice with respect to any duties or obligations that may be imposed by other provisions of law, statutes, codes, ordinances, regulations, or any other code of conduct. Conclusion: Under the circumstances outlined above, there is no inherent prohibition under the Ethics Act for you to serve both as a public official and as an architect in the firm of Quick Ledewitz Architects. Accordingly, you may, consistent with the Ethics Act, serve in these capacities simultaneously, subject to the restrictions outlined above. 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, disclosed truthfully all the material facts and committed ' the t acts e c c omplained s 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 writing, to the Commission within 15 days of service of this Adviceepursuantn made, to 51 Pa. Code 2.12. Sincerely, Vincent J. Dopko General Counsel