HomeMy WebLinkAbout873-2 GericIn Re: James Geric
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
309 FINANCE BUILDING
P.O. BOX 11470
HARRISBURG, PA 17108 -1470
TELEPHONE (717) 783 -1610
: File Docket: 91- 004 -C2
Date Decided: 04/08/94
: Date Mailed: 04/13/94
Before: Joseph W. Marshall, III
The following is an.__adjudication of the State Ethics
Commission which is issued in compliance with an order of remand
for readjudication by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania in
Geric v. SEC, as per a Memorandum Opinion and Order of January 28,
1994 filed at 162 . C.D. 1993 and in accord with an agreement between
the parties hereto.
Upon issuance of Geric, Order 873 by the Commission on
December 15, 1992, an appeal was filed with Commonwealth Court
raising inter alia a commingling between the prosecutorial and
adjudicatory divisions of the Commission. In the decision of the
Commonwealth Court, it was noted that the commingling issue could
not be adjudicated on the existing record. A remand to the
Commission was ordered by the Court and a hearing was held on March
18, 1994.
During the course of these proceedings the parties hereto have
reached a consent agreement.
This adjudication is issued as an acceptance of that
agreement and as a supplement to our prior decision in this matter
Order No. 873 which was affirmed in part by the Commonwealth Court
of Pennsylvania.
Geric, James, 91- 004 -C2
Page 2
FINDINGS:
1. On December 15, 1992 the State Ethics Commission issued Order
No. 813 in relation to allegations that James Geric as a
member of the East Pittsburgh Borough Council had violated
various provisions of the Public Official and Employee Ethics
Laws of 1978 and 1989.
. Said Order concluded that James Geric_did not violate Sections
3(a) and 3(c) of the;Ethics Law 1978.
3. Said Order further concluded that James Geric did violate
Section 3(a) of the Eth &cs Laid of 1919 and Section 4(a) of the
Ethics Law of 1978.
4. The Order also - concluded ~that the financial gain received in
violation of the Law totaled $905.00.4
5. James Geric appealed the order of the State Ethics Commission
to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.
6. The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania on °January 28, 1994
issued an opinion and order affirming in part and vacating and
remanding in part the order of the State. Ethics Commission.
(Geric v. Statb.Ethic Commission No. 162 E.D. 1993)
7. The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania affirmedthat part of
the Ethics Commission order which found no violation of
Sections 3(a) and 3(c) of the Ethics Law of 1978 and that part
that found a violation of Section 4(a) of the Ethics Law of
1978 regarding the filing of Statements of Financial
Interests.
8. The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania vacated that portion of
the order of the State Ethics Commission that found a
violation of Section 3(a) of the Ethics Law of 1989 and
remanded the matter for "readjudication, utilizing a
Commissioner who did not participate in preferring charges
against Geric."
9. On March 18, 1994 further proceedings � a Ethics conducted
Joseph W. Marshall III, m
furtherance of the remand by the Commonwealth Court of
Pennsylvania.
10. During the course of the remand proceedings the Investigative
Division of the State Ethics Commission and Respondent James
Geric, through Counsel have reached a stipulated resolution of
the remaining allegation.
11. Said resolution is as follows:
Geric, James, 9I-004-C2
Page 3
a. The action of James Geric as a member of the Borough of
East Pittsburgh authorizing the repair of Borough
vehicles by Tri- Valley Automotive, a business owned by
his brother fails to conform with the provisions of the
Public Official and Employee Ethics Law, Act 9 -1989, 65
P.S. 5403(a).
b. Said inadvertent transgression of the Ethics Law occurred
without specific intent to violate the law and
respondent's actions were based upon the previously
received advice of the borough solicitor.
c. A financial gain was realized by Tri - Valley Automotive in
the amount of $905.00.
d. Respondent James Geric agrees to make restitution in said
amount to East Pittsburgh Borough, through the State
Ethics Commission within 30 days of the approval and
issuance of this agreement.
e. This adjudication is issued as a supplement to the
original order in this matter.
f. Upon completion of the payment of the previous noted
restitution no .further action will be taken or
recommended by the Investigative Division of the State
Ethics Commission.
Geric, James, 91- 004 -C
Page 4
In Re: James Geric
: File Docket: 91- 044 -C2
Date .Decided: 04/08/94
Date Mailed: 04/13/94
ORDER NO. 873 -2
a. The action of James Geric as a member of the Borough of
East Pittsburgh authorizing the repair of Borough
vehicles by Tri- valley Automotive, a business owned by
his brother fails to conform with the provisions of the
Public Official and Employee Ethics Law, Act 9 -1989, 65
P.S. 5403(a).
b. Said inadvertent transgressione tEthics
i ntent to violate Law occurred without specific law
and respondent's actions were based upon the previously
received advice of the borough solicitor.
c. A financial gain was realized by Tri - valley Automotive in
the amount of $905.00.
d. Respondent James Geric agrees to make esti h i the State
amount to East Pittsburgh Borough, through
Commission within 30 days of the approval and
issuance of this agreement.
e. This adjudication is issued as a supplement to the
original order in this matter.
f. Upon completion of the payment of the previous noted
restitution no further action will be taken or
recommended by the Investigative Division of the State
Ethics Commission.
BY THE COMMISSION,
J■-•p•Q.O
EPH
!1. MARSHALL, YII
COMMISSIONER