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