Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout95-597 RaybackJames M. Rayback, Esquire Solicitor for Centre County Rayback and Blanarik, Inc. Attorneys at Law 102 East College Avenue State College, PA 16801 Dear Mr. Rayback: STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 309 FINANCE BUILDING P.O. BOX 11470 HARRISBURG, PA 17108 -1470 TELEPHONE (717) 783 -1610 ADVICE OF COUNSEL August 25, 1995 95 -597 Re: Former Public Employee; Section 3(g); County; Finance Director. This responds to your letter of July 25, 1995, in which you requested advice from the State Ethics Commission. Issue: Whether the Public Official and Employee Ethics Law presents any restrictions upon the employment of a county finance director following termination of service with the county. Facts: After referencing a conversation on July 24, 1995 with staff in the Office of Chief Counsel concerning a situation in Centre County, you now write to the Commission on behalf of the Commissioners of Centre County as their Solicitor and with the permission of Dee Elbell, the Centre County Director of Finance, to request an opinion from this office. You have enclosed a copy of the job description for the Director of Finance in Centre County which is incorporated herein by reference. The Director of Finance monitors contractors to insure compliance with contracts in Centre County. The current director monitors a company which provides computer assistance, management, repair, software, and advice to Centre County. That computer company is working under a five year contract which contract was "formed" before Ms. Elbell was hired by Centre County on February 21, 1995. Ms. Elbell has direct contact with RBA (which is apparently the computer company). The job description of Elbell details all of her job duties and her areas of discretion. RBA recently advertised for a position to act as the primary liaison /staff person on behalf of RBA to manage the Centre County Rayback, Esquire, James M., 95 -597 August 25, 1995 Page 2 contract. After Ms. Elbell applied for the position, she was accepted and is due to begin work in the near future. Since the issue of an ethics violation was raised, you have contacted the Commission. You understand that there is a possibility of an ethics violation in this situation because of her position as a public official under 65 P.S. §403. You were told that she would be permitted to go to work for RBA but that she would not be permitted to represent RBA before Centre County Government. You need a confirmation from the Commission and an explanation of what it means to represent RBA before Centre County Government. You ask whether representation includes only negotiations or something as low level as making phone calls or writing letters to Centre County on behalf of RBA. Even though you think you know the position that the Commission will take on the above, you request an official opinion from the Commission. Discussion: As the Finance Director for Centre County, Dee Elbell (Elbell) is to be considered a "public employee" within the definition of that term as set forth in the Public Official and Employee Ethics Law and the Regulations of this Commission. 65 P.S. §402; 51 Pa. Code §11.1. This conclusion is based upon the job description, which when reviewed on an objective basis, indicates clearly that the power exists to take or recommend official action of a non - ministerial nature with respect to contracting, procurement, planning, inspecting, administering or monitoring grants, leasing, regulating, auditing or other activities where the economic impact is greater than de minimis on the interests of another person. Consequently, upon termination of public service, Elbell would become a "former public employee" subject to Section 3(g) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Law. Section 3(g) of the Ethics Act provides that: Section 3. Restricted activities. (g) No former public official or public employee shall represent a person, with promised or actual compensation, on any matter before the governmental body with which he has been associated for one year after he leaves that body. Initially, to answer your request the governmental body with which Elbell is associated while working with Centre County must be identified. Then, the scope of the prohibitions associated with Rayback, Esquire, James M., 95 -597 August 25, 1995 Page 3 the concept and term of "representation" must be reviewed. The term "governmental body with which a public official or public employee is or has been associated" is defined under the Ethics Law as follows: Section 2. Definitions. "Governmental body with which a public official or public employee is or has been associated." The governmental body within State government or a political subdivision by which the public official or employee is or has been employed or to which the public official or employee is or has been appointed or elected and subdivisions and offices within that governmental body. In applying the above definition to the instant matter, we must conclude that the governmental body with which Elbell is associated upon termination of public service would be Centre County. The above is based upon the language of the Ethics Law, the legislative intent (Legislative Journal of House, 1989 Session, No. 15 at 290, 291) and the prior precedent of this Commission. Thus, in Sirolli, Opinion 90 -006, the Commission found that a former Division Director of the Department of Public Welfare (DPW) was not merely restricted to the particular Division as was contended but was in fact restricted to all of DPW regarding the one year representation restriction. Similarly in Sharp, Opinion 90- 009 -R, it was determined that a former legislative assistant to a state senator was not merely restricted to that particular senator but to the entire Senate as his former governmental body. Therefore, within the first year after termination of service with Centre County, Section 3(g) of the Ethics Law would apply and restrict representation of persons or new employers vis -a -vis Centre County. It is noted that Act 9 of 1989 significantly broadened the definition of the term "governmental body with which a public official or public employee is or has been associated." It was the specific intent of the General Assembly to define the above term so that it was not merely limited to the area where a public official/ employee had influence or control but extended to the entire governmental body with which the public official /employee was associated. The foregoing intent is reflected in the legislative debate relative to the amendatory language for the above term: We sought to make particularly clear that when we are prohibiting for 1 year that Rayback, Esquire, James M., 95 -597 August 25, 1995 Page 4 revolving -door kind of conduct, we are dealing not only with a particular subdivision of an agency or a local government but the entire unit..." Legislative Journal of House, 1989 Session, No. 15 at 290, 291. Therefore, since the Ethics Law must be construed to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the General Assembly under 1 Pa. C.S.A. §1901, it is clear that the governmental body with which Elbell is associated is Centre County. Turning now to the scope of the restrictions under Section 3(g), the Ethics Law does not affect one's ability to appear before agencies or entities other than with respect to the former governmental body. Likewise, there is no general limitation on the type of employment in which a person may engage, following departure from their governmental body. It is noted, however, that the conflicts of interest law is primarily concerned with financial conflicts and violations of the public trust. The intent of the law generally is that during the term of a person's public employment he must act consistently with the public trust and upon departure from the public sector, that individual should not be allowed to utilize his association with the public sector, officials or employees to secure for himself or a new employer, treatment or benefits that may be obtainable only because of his association with his former governmental body. In respect to the one year restriction against such "representation," the Ethics Law defines "Represent" as follows: Section 2. Definitions. "Represent." To act on behalf of any other person in any activity which includes, but is not limited to, the following: personal appearances, negotiations, lobbying and submitting bid or contract proposals which are signed by or contain the name of a former public official or public employee. The Commission, in Popovich, Opinion 89 -005, has also interpreted the term "representation" as used in Section 3(g) of the Ethics Law to prohibit: 1. Personal appearances before the former governmental body or bodies, including, but not limited to, negotiations or renegotiations in general or as to contracts; 2. Attempts to influence; Rayback, Esquire, August 25, 1995 Page 5 James M., 95 -597 3. Submission of bid or contract proposals which are by or contain the of the former official /employee; name signed public 4. Participating in any matters before the former governmental body as to acting on behalf of a person; 5. Lobbying, that is representing the interests of any person or employer before the former governmental body in relation to legislation, regulations, etc. The Commission has also held that listing one's name as the person who will provide technical assistance on such proposal, document, or bid, if submitted to or reviewed by the former governmental body constitutes an attempt to influence the former governmental body. In Shay, Opinion 91 -012, the Commission held that Section 3(g) would prohibit the inclusion of the name of a former public official /public employee on invoices submitted by his new employer to the former governmental body, even though the invoices pertained to a contract which existed prior to termination of public service. Therefore, within the first year after termination of service, Elbell should not engage in the type of activity outlined above. Elbell may assist in the preparation of any documents presented to Centre County. However, Elbell may not be identified on documents submitted to Centre County. Elbell may also counsel any person regarding that person's appearance before Centre County. Once again, however, the activity in this respect should not be revealed to Centre County. Of course, any ban under the Ethics Law would not prohibit or preclude the making of general informational inquiries of Centre County to secure information which is available to the general public. This must not be done in an effort to indirectly influence the former governmental body or to otherwise make known to that body the representation of, or work for the new employer. In addition, the term "Person" is defined as follows under the Ethics Law: Section 2. Definitions. "Person." A business, governmental body, individual, corporation, union, association, firm, partnership, committee, club or other organization or group of persons. In applying the definition of "Person" quoted above, the Commission has held that the term includes a former public employee representing himself in providing consulting services to his former Rayback, Esquire, James M., 95 -597 August 25, 1995 Page 6 governmental body "Person" includes the former public Ledebur, Opinion . Confidential Opinion 93 -005. Further, the term a new government employer which is represented by employee before his former governmental employer. 95 -007. Furthermore, Sections 3(b) and 3(c) of the Ethics Law provide in part that no person shall offer to a public official /employee and no public official /employee shall solicit or accept anything of monetary value based upon the understanding that the vote, official action, or judgement of the public official /employee would be influenced thereby. Reference is made to these provisions of the law not to imply that there has been or will be any transgression thereof but merely to provide a complete response to the question presented. As to Elbell, her actions in applying for and obtaining the position with RBA is past conduct and is not addressed in this advisory which by definition is limited to future prospective conduct. As to the contacts that Elbell would make to Centre County on behalf of RBA, the prohibitions associated with the term representation have been set forth above. 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 Law. Conclusion: As a Finance Director for Centre County, Elbell is to be considered a "public employee" as defined in the Ethics Law. Upon termination of service with Centre County, Elbell would become a "former public employee" subject to Section 3(g) of the Ethics Law. The former governmental body is Centre County. The restrictions as to representation outlined above must be followed. The propriety of the proposed conduct has only been addressed under the Ethics Law. Further, should service be terminated, as outlined above, the Ethics Law also requires that a Statement of Financial Interests be filed for the year following termination of service. Pursuant to Section 7(11), 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. Rayback, Esquire, James M., 95 -597 August 25, 1995 Page 7 such. This letter is a public record and will be made available as 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. Any such appeal must be in writing and must be actually received at the Commission within thirty (30) days of the date of this Advice pursuant to 51 Pa. Code 513.2(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. cerely, • Vincent Dopko Chief Counsel