Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout015SR PickettBETTY L. PICKETT : File Docket: 92 -042 -P : Date Decided: September 15. 1992 Date Mailed: September 18, 1992 Before: James M. Howley, Chair Daneen E. Reese, Vice Chair Roy W. Wilt Austin M. Lee Allan M. Kluger The State Ethics Commission received a request for reconsider- ation on July 6, 1992, with respect to Order 015 -S issued on June 29, 1992. Pursuant to Section 2.38(b) of the regulations of the Commission, the discretion of the State Ethics Commission to grant reconsideration is properly invoked as follows: (b) Any party may ask the Commission to reconsider an order within 15 days of service of 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. In Re: STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 51 Pa. Code §2.38(b). This adjudication of the Commission is hereby sets forth the Discussion and Reconsideration Order. This Reconsideration Order as with Order 015 -S is a public document. issued which final and is Betty L. Pickett September 18, 1992 Page 2 ADJUDICATION DISCUSSION: Betty L. Pickett, hereinafter Pickett, has timely requested reconsideration of Pickett, Order 015 -S, issued on June 29, 1992. In the foregoing Order, we determined that Pickett as a Member of the Allegheny County Board of Assistance failed to comply with Sections 4 and 5 of the Ethics Law (Act 9 of 1989), 65 P.S. SS404, 405, by failing to timely file a Statement of Financial Interests for calendar year 1990 with the State Ethics Commission and the Governor's Office of Administration. We levied one civil penalty against Pickett at the rate of $25.00 per day for each day Pickett's Statement of Financial Interests for calendar year 1990 had remained delinquent, for the total civil penalty of $250.00. We ordered Pickett to pay the above civil penalty in the total amount of $250.00 within thirty days of the issuance of Order 015 - S, by forwarding a check to this Commission payable to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for deposit in the State Treasury. We directed Pickett within thirty days of issuance of Order 015 -S to file a complete and accurate Statement of Financial Interests for calendar year 1990 with the State Ethics Commission and the Governor's Office of Administration, providing full financial disclosure as required by the Ethics Law. Pickett raises the following arguments in support of the claim for reconsideration. First, Pickett states that her failure to file the Statement of Financial Interests was not out of disrespect for the law but was due to a misunderstanding of the procedures governing the Allegheny County Board of Assistance ( "Board "). Pickett states that she considered herself to be off the Board because she had not attended any Board meetings since 1989. Pickett states that at that time no one mentioned the need for written resignation, and it was not until she received Notices from this Commission in June of 1992 that she submitted a formal resignation. Second, Pickett states that the Board has no formal say in policy decisions on welfare, offers no "perks," is not viewed as a "stepping stone" for political office, does not pay an honorarium or give gifts to its members, and therefore she did not view her role on the Board to be other than as an unpaid volunteer. Third, Pickett states that due to the above she did not realize that this Commission would require her to file a Statement of Financial Interests. Fourth, Pickett states that her only source of money is her job as a director of a non - profit agency. Betty L. Pickett September 18, 1992 Page 3 We shall consider each of the above arguments to determine whether the proffered reasons in support of the request for reconsideration meet the standard set forth in 51 Pa. Code S2.38(b), supra. Pickett's first and third arguments are disspelled. Intent is not a requisite element for a finding of a violation of the Ethics Law. See, Yacobet v. Com., State Ethics Com'n, 531 A.2d 536 (1987). Thus, there has been no material error of law. Furthermore, Pickett has not offered any explanation for failing to timely raise these arguments. It would appear that Pickett disregarded these proceedings until a civil penalty was levied against her. Pickett has failed to meet the standard for reconsideration based upon "new facts or evidence" set forth in 51 Pa. Code §2.38(b)(3), because the arguments which Pickett now offers could have been raised prior to the issuance of Order 015 -S. Pickett's second argument appears to suggest that as a Member of the Allegheny County Board of Assistance she should not be deemed to be a public official subject to the Ethics Law. This Commission has previously analyzed the duties, functions and responsibilities of county boards of assistance as set forth in the Public Welfare Code and has determined that members of county boards of assistance are indeed public officials subject to the Ethics Law. See, Thomas, Opinion 89 -001. Furthermore, as for the fact that Pickett's service upon the Board was uncompensated, pursuant to the Supreme Court's decision in Snider v. Thornburah,469 Pa. 159, 436 A.2d 593 (1981), compensation or lack thereof may not constitutionally be considered in determining an individual's status as a public official subject to the Ethics Law. Pickett's fourth argument has no relevance to a request for reconsideration under the standard of 51 Pa. Code §2.38(b). Furthermore, Pickett's employment /income status does not appear to be "new" information which could not have been raised before the civil penalty was levied. Upon review of the Order in conjunction with the arguments which have been made, there has been no showing of either a material error of law, material error of fact, or new facts or evidence_ which would warrant reconsideration. In Re: BETTY L. PICRETT : File Docket: 92 -042 -P : Date Decided: September 15, 1992, : Date Mailed: September 18. 1992 RECONSIDERATION ORDER 015 -S -R 1. The request by Betty L. Pickett to reconsider Order 015 -S issued on June 29, 1992 is denied. BY THE COMMISSION, JAMES M. HOWLEY, CHAIR