Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout910-R BakowiczSTATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 In re: John R. Bakowicz File Docket: 88 -116 -C Date Decided: 02/17/94 Date Mailed: 02/24/94 Before: James M. Howley, Chair Dennis C. Harrington Roy W. Wilt Austin M. Lee Joseph W. Marshall, III The State Ethics Commission received a request for reconsideration on December 22, 1993, with respect to Order No. 910 issued on December 10, 1993. Pursuant to Section 2.38 of the Regulations of the Commission, the discretion of the State Ethics Commission to grant reconsideration is properly invoked as follows: Section 2.38. Finality, reconsideration. (b) Any party may ask the Commission to reconsider an order within 15 days of service to the order. The person requesting reconsideration should present a detailed explanation setting forth the reason why the order should be reconsidered. Reconsideration may be granted at the discretion of the Commission only where any of the following occur: (1) A material error of law has been made. (2) A material error of fact has been made. (3) New facts or evidence are provided which would lead to reversal or modification of the order and where these could not be or were not discovered previously by the exercise of due diligence. 51 Pa. Code 52.38. This adjudication of the Commission is hereby issued which sets forth the Discussion and Reconsideration Order. This Reconsideration Order and Order No. 910 are final and shall be made available as "a public document on the fifth (5th) business day following the date of issuance. Bakowicz, 88 -116 -C Page 2 ADJUDICATION John R. Bakowicz, hereinafter Bakowicz, has requested reconsideration of Bakowicz, Order 910, issued on December 10, 1993. In the foregoing Order, we determined that Bakowicz as the Engineer for Sunbury, the Sunbury Redevelopment Authority and Community Development Program did not violate either Section 3(a) or 3(b) of Act 170 of 1978 based upon an insufficiency of evidence as to the allegation that he used confidential information from his position to purchase a parcel of SRA owned property without an ppen and public process; entered into a private business relationship with Kenneth Pick in return for Pick's assistance in obtaining the city property and CDP loan; used his position to alter plans for a proposed parking lot to be built by the SRA and the City of Sunbury to benefit his private property which is located adjacent to the parking lot; and as City and Authority Engineer .reviewed and approved his private plans. In the reconsideration request, after reciting r of law history of the case, Bakowicz asserts that a material ror was made as to the following sentence which is contained in, the Disctssion of Order 910: As to the business relationship with Pick, . the purchase of the - property and obtaining the loan, the alteration of the parking lots plans to the benefit of Bakowicz and finally the review of his own private plans, w gabe that there was self dealing by however, we are unable to conclude on this record that there was a quantifiable financial gain resulting from a use of office and on that basis we find no violation of Section 3(a) of Act 170 of 1978 based upon an . insufficiency of evidence. Bak owicz at 28. In particular, Bakowicz objects to the above quoted phraseology on the theory that he did not review his private plans in a public capacity. Bakowicz asserts that as a professional engineer licensed by the Commonwealth and subject to periodic licensing renewal by the Department of State, he is concerned that a public document containing such language could affect his professional licensure even though the result was a finding of no violation based upon an insufficiency of evidence. Bakowicz then concludes that because a statement that there was self dealing in the form of a review of his own private plans in a pub public c is not supported by substantial evidence, the qu gu 4 Bakowicz, 88 -116 -C Page 3 should be deleted from Order 910. A review of the quoted sentence merely reflects a restatement of the allegation followed by the conclusion that no violation was found based upon an insufficiency of evidence. In the simplest terms possible, the statement merely reflects the conclusion of no violation based upon an insufficiency of evidence as to the recited allegation. The language regarding self dealing is reflective of our belief that based upon the totality of facts and circumstances in this case, Bakowicz was self dealing and there was a clear and explicit conflict between his public duties and his private interests. There is no material error of law, there is no error at all in terms of the phraseology and there is no basis for granting reconsideration. The parties in this case, the Investigative Division and Bakowicz, entered into a consent agreement based upon stipulated findings, subject to our review. Upon the review of the stipulated findings, we accepted the consent agreement and issued an Order 910 which adopted the stipulated findings with a resultant no violation. Our analysis, as contained in the Discussion, was within the exclusive province of this Commission as to phraseology. We find any posed objection to our Discussion under a consent agreement to be inappropriate and in this specific case to be picayune. Brunton, Order 884 -R. In light of the foregoing, the request for reconsideration is denied. In re: John R. Bakowicz : File Docket: 88 -116 -C : Date Decided: 02/17/94 Date Mailed: 02/24/94 RECONSIDERATION ORDER NO. 910 -R, 1. The request to reconsider Order No. 910 issued on December 10, 1993 is denied. BY THE COMMISSION, JAMES M. HOWL , R