HomeMy WebLinkAbout18-538 FalatovichPHONE: 717- 783 -1610
TOLL FREE: 1 -800- 932 -0936
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
FINANCE BUILDING
613 NORTH STREET, ROOM 309
HARRISBURG, PA 17120 -0400
ADVICE OF COUNSEL
June 19, 2018
To the Requester:
Mr. Gary A. 1=alatovich, Esquire
Dear Mr. Falatovich:
FACSIMILE: 717- 787 -0806
WEBSITE: www,ethics.pa.00v
18-538
This responds to your letter dated May 29, 2018, by which you requested an
advisory from the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission ( "Commission ").
Issue: Whether the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act ( "Ethics Act "), 65
T75-T:S. § 1101 et seq., would impose prohibitions or restrictions upon any of four
members of a borough council with regard to participating in negotiations, votes, or
other actions of borough council pertaining to a county municipal authority's proposal to
purchase the assets and assimilate some or all of the union and non -union employees
of a joint sewage authority that was formed by the borough and two other municipalities,
where: (1) one of the borough council members, who is borough council president, is a
union employee of the sewage authority as well as a union steward; (2) one of the
borough council members, who is borough council vice president, is a non -union
employee of the sewage authority; (3) one of the borough council members is a union
employee of the county municipal authority and a union trustee; and (4) one of the
borough council members receives a stipend of $200 per month for serving as a
member of the board of the sewage authority.
Facts: You have been authorized by Jeffrey Tabita ( "Mr. Tabita "), Earl
igg Berger ( "Mr. Highberger'.), Jeanne Davis ( "Ms. Davis "), and Ronald Holtzer ( "Mr.
Holtzer ") to request an advisory from the Commission on their behalf. You have
submitted facts that may be fairly summarized as follows.
Mr. Tabita, Mr. Highberger, Ms. Davis, and Mr. Holtzer are Members of Council
for the Borough of Southwest Greensburg ( "Borough "), located in Westmoreland
County, Pennsylvania. Mr. Tabita is President and Mr. Highberger is Vice President of
Borough Council.
The Greater Greensburg Sewage Authority (the "Sewage Authority ") is a joint
sanitary sewage authority that was formed by the Borough, the City of Greensburg, and
the Borough of South Greensburg (collectively, the "Member Municipalities ") to provide
sanitary sewage disposal facilities to the Member Municipalities. The Municipal
Authority of Westmoreland County (the "Municipal Authority ") provides regional water
and sewage services to municipalities throughout Westmoreland pCounty.
The Municipal Authority is seeking
to purchase the assets
of
the
Sewage
Authority. If the Sewage Authority Board
will not approve a sale
of
the
Sewage
Authority's assets, the Municipal Authority
will seek the approval
of
the
Member
Municipalities for a sale of those assets.
Negotiations on a sale
of
the
Sewage
Falatovich, 18 -538
un2018
Page 2
Authority assets would be conducted between the Municipal Authority Board and
representative Members of the Councils of the Member Municipalities.
A Municipal Authority proposal to purchase the Sewage Authority's assets would
also involve the assimilation of some or all of the Sewage Authority's union and non-
union employees as Municipal Authority employees. The issues of which Sewage
Authority employees would be retained as Municipal Authority employees and what their
pay rates and other benefits would be as Municipal Authority employees would be
subject to negotiation. You state that traditionally, rank and file employees of an entity
acquired by the Municipal Authority are retained, while the extent to which supervisory
or administrative employees of an acquired entity are retained is dependent upon the
circumstances of each acquisition.
The Member Municipalities' approval of a sale of the Sewage Authority's assets
would eventually result in the dissolution of the Sewage Authority and the elimination of
the Sewage Authority Board. Each of the Member Municipalities would receive a
significant lump sum payment if the Municipal Authority would acquire the assets of the
Sewage Authority. In order to consummate the transaction, Members of Borough
Council would be required to vote upon and approve same.
Mr. Tabita is a rank and file employee of the Sewage Authority. Twelve Sewage
Authority employees, including Mr. Tabita, are members of Utility Workers Local #487
( "Union 1 "). Mr. Tabita holds the title of "Class 1 Licensed Operator," and he is a
licensed lab supervisor. Mr. Tabita will be the Union 1 steward until .July 1, 2018.
Mr. Highberger is employed by the Sewage Authority as the Superintendent of
the Sewage Authority plant, and he is a supervisor at the Sewage Authority plant. The
non -union employees of the Sewage Authority include Mr. Highberger, another
supervisor at the Sewage Authority plant, a supervisor for the Sewage Authority's
collection system, a manager, and four clerical personnel.
Ms. Davis is a rank and file employee of the Municipal Authority. Approximately
244 Municipal Authority employees, including Ms. Davis, are members of AFL -CIO
Local 164 ('Union 2 "). Ms. Davis serves as a Trustee on the Board of Union 2.
Mr. Holtzer serves as Borough Council's representative on the Sewage Authority
Board. Mr. Holtzer is paid a stipend of $200.00 per month for his service as a Member
of the Sewage Authority Board, and he would lose that stipend if the Sewage Authority
would be dissolved.
Any sewage rate increases that could result from the Municipal Authority's
acquisition of the assets of the Sewage Authority would impact Mr. Tabita, Mr.
Highberger, Ms. Davis, Mr. Holtzer, and all Borough residents.
Based upon the above submitted facts, you ask whether the Ethics Act would
impose prohibitions or restrictions upon Mr. Tabita, 'Mr. Highberger, Ms. Davis, or Mr.
Holtzer with regard to participating in negotiations, votes, or other actions of Borough
Council pertaining to a Municipal Authority, proposal to purchase the assets and
assimilate some or all of the union and non -union employees of the Sewage Authority.
It is administratively noted that Borough Council consists of 7 Members.
Discussion: It is initially noted that pursuant to Sections 1107(10) and 1107(11) of
e Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. §§ 1107(10), (11), advisories are issued to the requester
based upon the facts that the requester has submitted. In issuing the advisory based
upon the facts that the requester has submitted, the Commission does not engage in an
independent investigation of the facts, nor does it speculate as to facts that have not
been submitted. It is the burden of the requester to truthfully disclose all of the material
Fafatovich, 18 -538
une �5,�018
Page 3
facts relevant to the inquiry. 65 Pa.C.S. 1107(10 }, (11). An advisory only affords a
defense to the extent the requester has trut fully discllosed all of the material facts.
It is further initially noted that, pursuant to the same aforesaid Sections of the
Ethics Act, an opinion /advice may be given only as to prospective (future) conduct. To
the extent that your in uiry relates to conducf that has already occurred, such past
conduct may no be addressed in the context of an advisory opinion. However, to the
extent your inquiry relates to future conduct, your inquiry may and shall be addressed.
As Members of Borough Council, Mr. Tabita, Mr. Highberger, and Ms. Davis are
public officials subJJ'ect to the provisions of the Ethics Act. As a Member of Borough
Council and as a Mmber of the Sewage Authority Board, Mr. Holtzer is a public official
subject to the provisions of the Ethics Act.
Sections 1103(a) and 11030) of the Ethics Act provide:
§ 1103. Restricted activities
(a) Conflict of interest. - -No public official or public
employee shall engage in conduct that constitutes a conflict
of interest.
0) Voting conflict. - -Where voting conflicts are not
otherwise addressed by the Constitution of Pennsylvania or
by any law, rule, regulation, order or ordinance, the following
procedure shall be employed. Any public official or public
employee who in the discharge of his official duties would be
required to vote on a matter that would result in a conflict of
interest shall abstain from voting and, prior to the vote being
taken, publicly announce and disclose the nature of his
interest as a public record in a written memorandum filed
with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the
meeting at which the vote is taken, provided that whenever a
governing body would be unable to take any action on a
matter before it because the number of members of the body
required to abstain from voting under the provisions of this
section makes the majority or other legally required vote of
approval unattainable, then such members shall be
permitted to vote if disclosures are made as otherwise
provided herein. In the case of a three - member governing
bod of a political subdivision, where one member has
abstaained from voting as a result of a conflict of interest and
the remaining two members of the governing body have cast
opposing votes, the member who has abstained shall be
permitted to vote to break the tie vote if disclosure is made
as otherwise provided herein.
65 Pa.C.S. §§ 1103(a), 0).
The following terms related to Section 1103(a) are defined in the Ethics Act as
follows:
§ 1102. Definitions
"Conflict" or "conflict of interest." Use by a public
official or public employee of the authority of his office or
employment or any confidential information received through
his holding public office or employment for the private
Falatovich, 18 -538
un� eTg-, 2018
Page 4
pecuniary benefit of himself, a member of his immediate
family or a business with which he or a member of his
immediate family is associated. The term does not include
an action having a de minimis economic impact or which
affects to the same degree a class consisting of the general
public or a subclass consisting of an industry, occupation or
other group which includes the public official or public
employee, a member of his immediate family or a business
with which he or a member of his immediate family is
associated.
"Authority of office or employment." The actual
power provided by law, the exercise of which is necessary to
the performance of duties and responsibilities unique to a
particular public office or position of public employment.
"Business." Any corporation, partnership, sole
proprietorship, firm, enterprise, franchise, association,
organization, self - employed individual, holding company,
joint stock company, receivership, trust or any legal entity
organized for profit.
"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
has a financial interest.
65 Pa.C.S. § 1102.
Subject to the statutory exclusions to the Ethics Act's definition of the term
"conflict" or "conflict of interest," 65 Pa.C.S. § 1102, a public official/public employee is
prohibited from using the authority of public office /employment or confidential
information received by holding such a public position for the private pecuniary benefit
of the public official/public employee himself, any member of his immediate family, or a
business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated.
In each instance of a conflict of interest, the public official/public employee would
be required to abstain from participation. The abstention requirement would not be
limited merely to voting, but would extend to any use of authority of office including, but
not limited to, discussing, conferring with others, and lobbying for a particular result.
Juliante, Order 809. Subject to certain statutory exceptions, in each instance of a voting
conflict, Section 11030) of the Ethics Act would require the public official/public
employee to abstain and to publicly disclose the abstention and reasons for same, both
orally and by filing a written memorandum to that effect with the person recording the
minutes.
Per the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision in Kistler v. State Ethics
Commission, 610 Pa. 516, 22 A.3d 223 (2011), in order to violate Section 1103(a) of the
Ethics Act, a public official/public employee:
... must act in such a way as to put his office /public position]
to the purpose of obtaining for himself a private pecuniary
benefit. Such directed action implies awareness on the part
of the [public official/public employee] of the potential
pecuniary benefit as well as the motivation to obtain that
benefit for himself.
Falatovich1 18 -538
June 19, 018
Page 5
Kistler, supra, 610 Pa. at 523, 22 A.3d at 227. To violate Section 1103 {a} of the Ethics
Act, a public official/public employee "must be consciously aware of a private pecuniary
benefit for himself, his family, or his business, and then must take action in the form of
one or more specific steps to attain that benefit." Id., 610 Pa. at 528, 22 A.3d at 231.
A conflict of interest would not exist to the extent the "de minimis exclusion"
and/or the "classlsubclass exclusion" set forth within the Ethics Act's definition of the
term "conflict" or "conflict of interest," 65 Pa.C.S. § 1102, would be applicable.
The de minimis exclusion precludes a finding of conflict of interest as to an action
having a de minimis (insignificant) economic impact. Thus, when a matter that would
otherwise constitute a conflict of interest under the Ethics Act would have an
insignificant economic impact, a conflict would not exist and Section 1103 (a) of the
Ethics Act would not be implicated. See, Kolb, Order 1322; Schweinsburg, Order 900.
In order for the class/subclass exclusion to a ply, two criteria must be met: (1)
the affected public official/public employee, immediNe family member, or business with
which the public official /public employee or immediate family member is associated
must be a member of a class consisting of the general public or a true subclass
consisting of more than one member; and {2 the public official /public employee,
immediate family member, or business with whic the public official /public employee or
immediate family ember is associated must be affected "to the same degree" (in no
way differently) than the other members of the class/subclass. 65 Pa.C.S. § 1102; see,
Kablack, Opinion 02 -003; Rubenstein, Opinion 01 -007. The first criterion of the
exclusion is satisfied where the members of the proposed subclass are similarly
situated as the result of relevant shared characteristics. The second criterion of the
exclusion is satisfied where the individual /business in question and the other members
of the class/subclass are reasonably affected to the same degree by the proposed
action. Kablack, supra,
In applying the above provisions of the Ethics Act to your inquiry, it is noted that
this Advice cannot foresee every factual variable that might occur as the matters of the
Municipal Authority's proposed purchase of the assets of the Sewage Authority and
assimilation of Sewage Authority employees are considered. However, in any given
instance, for each of the four Borough Council Members on whose behalf you have
inquired, the standard to be applied in determining whether a conflict of interest exists is
the Kistler standard set forth above. Under the submitted facts, pursuant to Kistler,
su�r_a, Mr. Tabita, Mr. Highberger, Ms. Davis, and Mr. Holtzer would each have a
conflict of interest under Section 1103(x) of the Ethics Act as to participating in
negotiations, votes, or other actions of Borough Council pertaining o a potential sale of
the Sewage Authority's assets to the Municipal Authority, andfor the assimilation of
Sewage Authority employees as Municipal Authority employees, if: 1) he/she would be
consciously aware of a private pecuniary benefit for himself /hersel or a business with
which he/she is associated; {2} his/her action(s) would constitute one or more specific
steps to attain that benefit; and (3) neither the de minimis exclusion nor the
classlsubclass exclusion set forth within the Ethics Act's definition of the term "conflict"
or "conflict of interest," 65 Pa.C.S. § 1102, would be applicable. Cf. Kistler, supra.
For Mr. Tabita or Mr. Highberger, examples of actions that could result in a
conflict of interest, depending upon the facts and circumstances, would include actions
to: reserve his employment with the Sewage Authority (Cf., Miscavi e, Advice 99-
544y,)(2) advance his employment with the Municipal Authority; (3 enhance - -or reduce
a loss as to- -his compensation or employment benefits; or ( ) financially benefit a
business with which he is associated. Based upon the submitted facts, it cannot be
determined whether Mr. Tabita's status as the Union 1 steward would result in Union 1
being considered a business with which Mr. Tabita is associated. If a Union 1 steward
is a director, officer, or employee of Union 1, then Union 1 would be considered a
business with which Mr. Tabita is currently associated.
Falatovich, 18 -538
un
_ zS, _2018
Page 6
Given Ms. Davis's status as a Trustee serving on the Board of Union 2, Union 2
would be considered a business with which Ms. Davis is associated. Depending upon
the facts and circumstances, Ms. Davis could have a conflict of interest in her capacity
as a Borough Council Member with regard to action(s) that would financially benefit her
or Union 2.
Because Mr. Holtzer would lose his $200.00 per month stipend for serving as a
Member of the Sewage Authority Board if the Sewage Authority would be dissolved, Mr.
Holtzer would have a conflict of interest with regard to participating in negotiations,
votes, or other actions of Borough Council by which he would oppose a potential sale of
the Sewage Authority's assets to the Municipal Authority.
In each instance of a conflict of interest, the Borough Council Member(s) with the
conflict of interest would be required to abstain from participation, which would include
voting unless a voting conflict exception of Section 11030) of the Ethics Act would be
applicable. Additionally, the disclosure requirements of Section 11030) of the Ethics Act
would have to be satisfied in the event of a voting conflict.
Section 11030) of the Ethics Act contains two voting conflict exceptions. The
voting conflict exception for breaking a tie vote despite a conflict of interest is available
exclusively to members of three - member governing bodies who first abstain and
disclose their conflicts as required by Section 1103{1) of the Ethics Act. See, Pavlovic,
Opinion 02 -005. The only voting conflict exception that enables a member of a seven -
member board such as Borough Council to vote despite a conflict of interest requires
that the following conditions be met: (1) the board must be unable to take an action on
red t m
the matter before it because the number of members re aio abstain fro voting
under the provisions of the Ethics Act makes the majority or other legall required vote
of approval unattainable; and (2) prior to voting, such members with con licts under the
Ethics Act must disclose their conflicts as required by Section 11030). When both of
these conditions are met, such that the exception is applicable, the exception allows for
voting only --it does not permit other forms of participation, such as discussing the
matter that is the subject of the vote. Pavlovic, supra.
Therefore, pursuant to Sections 1103(a) and 11030) of the Ethics Act, the
Borough Council Member(s) with a conflict of interest with regard to certain matter(s)
would not be permitted to vote on such matter(s) unless so many Members of Borough
Counal would have conflicts of interest under the Ethics Act as to such matters that
there would not be enough non-conflicted Members left to take action.
The propriety of the proposed conduct has only been addressed under the Ethics
Act; the applicability f any other statute, code, ordinance, regulation or other code of
conduct other than the Ethics Act has not been considered in that they do not involve an
interpretation of the Ethics Act. Specifically not addressed herein is the applicability of
the Borough Code or the Municipality Authorities Act.
Conclusion: As Members of Council for the Borough of Southwest Greensburg
Ub%ou g , located in Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania, Jeffrey Tabita ( "Mr.
a "), Eari Highberger ( "Mr. Highberger "), and Jeanne Davis ( "Ms. Davis ") are public
officials subject o the provisions of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act ( "Ethics
Act "), 65 a. S. § 1101 et se q. As a Member of Borough Council and as a Member of
the Board of the Greater Greensburg Sewage Authority (the "Sewage Authority "),
Ronald Holtzer ( "Mr. Holtzer ") is a public official subject to the provisions of the Ethics
Act. Based upon the submitted and administratively noted facts that: (1) the Sewage
Authority is a joint sanitary sewage authority that was formed by the Borough, the City
of Greensbur , and the Borough of South Greensburg (collectively, the "Member
Municipalities"3 to provide sanitary sewage disposal facilities to the Member
Municipalities; (2) the Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County (the Municipal
Falatovich, 18 -538
U_u_ne_T9_,2 018
Page 7
Authority ") provides regional water and sewage services to municippalities throughout
Westmoreland County; (3) the Municipal Authority is seekingg to purchase the assets of
the Sewage Authority; (4) if the Sewage Authority Board wi[I not approve a sale of the
Sewage Authority's assets, the Municipal Authority will seek the approval of the Member
Municipalities for a sale of those assets, (5) negotiations on a sale of the Sewage
Authority assets would be conducted between the Municipal Authority Board and
representative Members of the Councils of the Member Municipalities; (6) a Municipal
Authority proposal to purchase the Sewage Authority's assets would also involve the
assimilation of some or all of the Sewage Authority's union and non -union employees as
Municippal Authority employees; (7) the issues of which Sewage Authority employees
would be retained as Municipal Authority employees and what their pay rates and other
benefits would be as Municipal Authority employees would be subject to negotiation; (8)
traditionally, rank and file employees of an entity acquired by the Municipal Authority are
retained, while the extent to which supervisory or administrative employees of an
acquired entity are retained is dependent upon the circumstances of each acquisition;
(9) the Member Municipalities' approval of a sale of the Sewage Authority's assets
would eventually result in the dissolution of the Sewage Authority and the elimination of
the Sewage Authority Board; (10) each of the Member Municipalities would receive a
significant lump sum payment if the Municipal Authority would acquire the assets of the
Sewage Authority; (11) in order to consummate the transaction, Members of Borough
Council would be required to vote upon and approve same; (12) Mr. Tabita is President
and Mr. Highberger is Vice President of Borough Council; (13) Mr. Tabita is a rank and
file employee of the Sewage Authority; (14) twelve Sewage Authority employees,
including Mr. Tabita, are members of Utility Workers Local #487 ( "Union 1 "); (15) Mr.
Tabita holds the title of "Class 1 Licensed Operator," and he is a licensed lab
supervisor; (16) Mr. Tabita will be the Union 1 steward until July 1, 2018; {'17) Mr.
Highberger is employed by the Sewage Authority as the Superintendent of the Sewage
Authority plant, and he is a supervisor at the Sewage Authority plant; (18) the non -union
employees of the Sewage Authority include Mr. Highberger, another supervisor at the
Sewage Authority plant, a supervisor for the Sewage Authority's collection system, a
manager, and four clerical personnel; (19) Ms. Davis is a rank and file employee of the
Municipal Authority; (20) approximately 244 Municipal Authority employees, including
Ms. Davis, are members of AFL -CIO Local 164 ( "Union 2 "); (21) Ms. Davis serves as a
Trustee on the Board of Union 2; (22) Mr. Holtzer serves as Borough Council's
representative on the Sewage Authority Board; (23) Mr. Holtzer is paid a stipend of
$200.00 per month for his service as a ember of the Sewage Authority Board, and he
would lose that stipend if the Sewage Authority would be dissolved; (24) any sewage
rate increases that could result from the Municipal Authority's acquisition of the assets
of the Sewage Authority would impact Mr. Tabita, Mr. Highberger, Ms. Davis, Mr.
Holtzer, and all other Borough residents; and (25) Borough Council consists of 7
Members, you are advised as follows.
Mr. Tabita, Mr. Highberger, Ms. Davis, and Mr. Holtzer would each have a
conflict of interest under Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act as to participating in
negotiations, votes, or other actions of Borough Council pertaining to a potential sale of
the Sewage Authority's assets to the Municipal Authority, and /or the assimilation of
Sewage Authority employees as Municipal Authority employees, if: (1) he /she would be
consciously aware of a private pecuniary benefit for himself /hersel or a business with
which he /she is associated; (2) his /her action(s) would constitute one or more specific
steps to attain that benefit; and (3) neither the de minimis exclusion nor the
class /subclass exclusion set forth within the Ethics Act's definition of the term "conflict"
or "conflict of interest," 65 Pa.C.S, § 1102, would be applicable.
For Mr. Tabita or Mr. Highberger, examples of actions that could result in a
conflict of interest, depending upon the facts and circumstances, would include actions
to: (1) preserve his employment with the Sewage Authority; (2) advance his
employment with the Municipal Authority; 3) enhance - -or reduce a loss as to - -his
compensation or employment benefits; or (4I financially benefit a business with which
Falatovich, 18 -538
une_T9,2018
Page 8
he is associated. Based upon the submitted facts, it cannot be determined whether Mr.
Tabita's status as the Union 1 steward would result in Union 1 being considered a
business with which Mr. Tabita is associated. If a Union 1 steward is a director, officer,
or employee of Union 1, then Union 1 would be considered a business with which Mr.
Tabita is currently associated.
Given Ms. Davis's status as a Trustee serving on the Board of Union 2, Union 2
would be considered a business with which Ms. Davis is associated. Depending upon
the facts and circumstances, Ms. Davis could have a conflict of interest in her capacity
as a Borough Council Member with regard to action(s) that would financially benefit her
or Union 2.
Because Mr. Holtzer would lose his $200.00 per month stipend for serving as a
Member of the Sewage Authority Board if the Sewage Authority would be dissolved, Mr.
Holtzer would have a conflict of interest with regard to participating in negotiations,
votes, or other actions of Borough Council by which he would oppose a potential sale of
the Sewage Authority's assets to the Municipal Authority.
In each instance of a conflict of interest, the Borough Council Member(s) with the
conflict of interest would be required to abstain from participation, which would include
voting unless a voting conflict exception of Section 11030) of the Ethics Act would be
applicable. Additionally, the disclosure requirements of Section 11030) of the Ethics Act
would have to be satisfied in the event of a voting conflict.
The only Section 11030) voting conflict exception that enables a member of a
seven - member board such as Borough Council to vote despite a conflict of interest
requires that the following conditions be met: (1) the board must be unable to take any
action on the matter before it because the number of members required to abstain from
votinq under the provisions of the Ethics Act makes the majority or other e all re uired
vote of approval unattainable; and (2) prior to voting, such members with con licts under
the Ethics Act must disclose their conflicts as required by Section 11030). When both of
these conditions are met, such that the exception is applicable, the exception allows for
voting only —it does not permit other forms of participation, such as discussing the
matter that is the subject of the vote.
Therefore, pursuant to Sections 1103(a) and 11030) of the Ethics Act, the
Borough Council Member(s) with a conflict of interest with regard to certain matter(s)
would not be permitted to vote on such matter(s) unless so many Members of Borough
Council would have conflicts of interest under the Ethics Act as to such matters that
there would not be enough non-conflicted Members left- to tae action.
Lastly, the propriety of the proposed conduct has only been addressed under the
Ethics Act.
Pursuant to Section 1107(11) of the Ethics Act, an Advice is a complete defense
in any enforcement proceeding initiated by the Commission, and evidence of good faith
conduct to any other civil or criminal proceeding, provided the requester 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 appeal the Advice to the full
Commission. A personal appearance before the Commission will be
scheduled and a formal Opinion will be issued by the Commission.
Falatovich, 18 -538
June S, 018
Page 9
Any such appeal must be in writing and must be act��ually
received at the Commission within thirty (30) days of the date this
vice pursuant to 57 Pa. Code § 13.2(h). The appeal may be
received at the Commission by hand delivery, United States mail,
delivery service, or by FAX transmission (717-787-0806). Failure to
file such an appeal at the Commission within thirty (30) days may
result in the dismissal of the appeal.
Sincerely,
Robin M. Hittie
Chief Counsel