Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout90-580 GlascottDear Mr. Glascott: STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING P.O. BOX 11470 HARRISBURG, PA 17108 -1470 TELEPHONE (717) 783 -1610 ADVICE OF COUNSEL August 8, 1990 Mr. Peter A. Glascott 90 -580 Bucks County Solicitor Office of the Commissioner Administration Building Doylestown, PA 18901 Re: Simultaneous Service, County Board of Assessment, School Director, Township Supervisor. This responds to your letters of May 22 and June 25, 1990,in which you requested advice from the State Ethics Commission. Issue: Whether the Public Official and Employee Ethics Law imposes any prohibition or restrictions upon a school director or township supervisor from also serving or being employed as a assessor for a third class county. Facts: As solicitor for Bucks County and on behalf of the County Commissioners who are the appointing authority, you request advice regarding the possible incompatibility of individuals serving either as school board director or township supervisor and assessor for a third class county. As to the school director, you note that the individual has participated and voted on matters involving property or questions within the school district but currently is not participating or voting on matters involving property during the pendency of this request. The second individual is an elected supervisor in a second class township and likewise has agreed to defer on participating or voting on matters involving property until the incompatibility issue has been resolved. Discussion: As a director for the y school district and as a supervisor for a second class township, the two individuals are "public officials" as that term is defined in the Ethics Law and hence they are subject to the provisions of the Ethics Law. 65 P.S. 1 402; 51 Pa. Code 1 1.1. Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act provides: Section 3. Restricted Activities. Mr. Peter A. Glascott Page 2 (a) No public official or public employee shall engage in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest. The following terms are defined under the Ethics Law: Section 2. 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 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. "Conflict" or "conflict of interest" 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 or 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. In addition, Sections 3(b) and 3(c) of the Ethics Law provide in part that no person shall offer to a public official /employee anything of monetary value and no "public official /employee shall solicit or accept any thing of monetary value based upon the understanding that official /employee would be influenced thereby. In applying the above provisions of the Ethics Law to the question of simultaneous service, there does not appear to be any real possibility of a private pecuniary benefit or inherent conflict arising if the two individuals were to serve both as public officials and as assessors for a third class county. Basically, the Ethics Law does not state that it is inherently Mr. Peter A. Glascott Page 3 incompatible for a public official /employee to serve or be employed as assessor for a third class county. The main prohibition under the Ethics Law and Opinions of the Ethics Commission is that one may not serve the interests of two persons, groups, or entities whose interests may be adverse. Smith Opinion, 89 -010. In the situation outlined above, they would not be serving entities with interests which are adverse to each other. However, if a situation arises where they or the respective entities they represent develop an adverse interest, then they must remove themselves from that particular matter and disclose the nature of their interest in a written memorandum to the appropriate person (supervisor or secretary who keeps the minutes). If such a situation would arise, additional advice may be sought from the Commission. Lastly, the propriety of the proposed conduct has only been addressed under the Ethics Law; the applicability of 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. Conclusion: As a director for a school district and as a supervisor for a second class township, the two individuals are "public officials" subject to the provisions of the Ethics Law. As a public officials, they may, consistent with Section 3(a) of the Ethics Law, simultaneously serve in the positions of school director and assessor for a third class county and also in the positions of second class township supervisor and assessor for a third class county. Lastly, the propriety of the proposed course of conduct has only been addressed under the Ethics Act. 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 in writing Mr. Peter A. Glascott Page 4 and must be received at the Commission within 15 days of the date of this Advice pursuant to 51 Pa. Code 52.12. ncerely, Vincent Dopko, Chief Counsel