Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout034-S RuncoIN RE: RUTH RUNCO Respondent STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 Before: James M. Howley, Chair Daneen E. Reese, Vice Chair Roy W. Wilt Austin M. Lee Allan M. Kluger File Docket: 92 -044 -P Date Decided: September 15, 1992 Date Mailed: September 3,8,_1992 The State Ethics Commission received information regarding possible violation(s) of Section 4 and /or Section 5 of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Law ( "Ethics Law "), Act 9 of 1989, 65 P.S. §401 e_ sec. Written Notice was mailed to Respondent in accordance with Section (7)(5) of the Ethics Law, as to which there was no response. A Notice and Order to Show Cause was issued and served upon Respondent. A formal Answer was not filed, but a letter response was received. A hearing was waived. The record is complete. This adjudication of the Commission is hereby issued, which sets forth Findings of Fact, Discussion, Conclusions of Law and Order. This Adjudication is final and is a public document. Reconsideration may be requested. A request for reconsideration, however, does not affect the finality of this adjudication. A reconsideration request must be received at this Commission within fifteen days of issuance and must include a detailed explanation of the reasons as, to why reconsideration should be granted in conformity with 51 Pa. Code SS2.38(b),(c). Ruth Runco September 18, 1992 Page 2 I. FINDINGS: 1. Respondent Ruth Runco is an adult individual who resides or maintains a mailing address at 373 East Fifth Street, Emporium, Pennsylvania 15834. 2. At all times relevant to these proceedings, Respondent has been a Member of the Cameron County Board of Assistance. (a) Respondent specifically held the aforesaid position in 1991. (b) Respondent has submitted a copy of her letter of resignation from the Cameron County Board of Assistance effective May 8, 1992. 3. Respondent did not file a Statement of Financial Interests for calendar year 1990 with the State Ethics Commission and the Governor's Office of Administration on or before May 1, 1991. 4. A Notice letter dated June 18, 1991 was served upon Respondent by this Commission. The said Notice letter stated in detail the specific allegations against Respondent concerning the delinquency of Respondent's Statement of Financial Interests for calendar year 1990 and the penalties for failure to file or for filing a deficient Statement of Financial Interests. The said Notice letter provided Respondent an opportunity to avoid the institution of these civil penalty proceedings by filing an accurate and complete Statement of Financial Interests for calendar year 1990 within fourteen (14) days of the date of the Notice letter. Respondent did not file a Statement of Financial Interests with the State Ethics Commission and the Governor's Office of Administration for calendar year 1990 within fourteen days of the date of the said Notice letter. 6. The public records of State Ethics Commission indicate that Respondent was previously served with Notices of the delinquency-of her Statements of Financial Interests for other calendar years, specifically calendar years 1987, 1988 and 1989. 7. As a matter of public record, Respondent filed Statements of Financial Interests for calendar years 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990 and 1991 after issuance of the Order to Show Cause, which Statements of Financial Interests are dated May 8, 1992 and were received by this Commission on May 13, 1992. 8. Respondent has submitted a letter dated May 8, 1992, enclosing Ruth Runco September 18, 1992 Page 3 the aforesaid Statements of Financial Interests and letter of resignation from the Board. (a) Respondent apologizes for not timely filing the submitted Statements of Financial Interests but states that since she has not been paid for her services as a Board Member, she did not feel that it was necessary. II. DISCUSSION: Respondent has been a Member of the Cameron County Board of Assistance at all times relevant to these proceedings. Respondent specifically held the aforesaid position in 1991. As a Member of the Cameron County Board of Assistance, : Respondent has at all times relevant to these proceedings been a "public official" as that term is defined under the Public Official and Employee Ethics Law ( "Ethics Law "), 65 P.S. S401, et seq subject to the provisions of the Ethics Law. Factually, Respondent failed to timely file a Statement of Financial Interests for calendar year 1990 with the State Ethics Commission and the Governor's Office of Administration, which constitutes a failure to comply with Sections 4 and 5 of the Ethics Law. 65 P.S. S 5404,405. Section 9(f) of the Ethics Law provides as follows: (f) In addition to any other civil remedy or criminal penalty provided for in this act, the commission may, after notice has been served in accordance with section 7(5) and upon a majority vote of its members, levy a civil penalty upon any person subject to this act who fails to file a statement of financial interests in a timely manner or who files a deficient statement of financial interests, at a rate of not more than $25 for each day such statement remains delinquent or deficient. The maximum penalty payable under this paragraph is $250. 65 P.S. §409(f). An application of Section 9(f) to this case establishes that this Commission has the discretion to levy a maximum civil penalty against the Respondent for the delinquent Statement of Financial Interests for calendar year 1990. The prerequisite service of a Notice letter in accordance with Section 7(5) was satisfied. Respondent did not remedy the failure to file a Statement of Financial Interests for calendar year 1990 although given fourteen days from the date of the aforesaid Notice letter in which to do so. This Commission then instituted formal proceedings against Ruth Runco September 18, 1992 Page 4 Respondent by issuing an Order to Show Cause, ordering Respondent to show cause why a civil penalty should not be levied against Respondent in this matter. Respondent did not file an answer to the Order to Show Cause. Respondent's letter dated May 8, 1992, by which she submitted copies of her Statements of Financial Interests for calendar years 1987 through 1991 and a copy of her letter of resignation from the Board, does proffer an apology for not timely filing the submitted forms, but states that since Respondent had not been paid for her services as a Board Member, she did not feel that it was necessary. Pursuant to the Supreme Court's decision in Snider v. Thornburgh, 469 Pa. 159, 436 A.2d 593 (1981), compensation or the lack thereof may not constitutionally be considered in determining an individual's status as a public official subject to the Ethics Law. Furthermore, 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). Nor may Respondent's apology and alleged lack of intent rationally be viewed as a mitigating circumstance in this case where as a matter of public record, Respondent was repeatedly notified by this Commission year after year of her obligation to file Statements of Financial Interests in her position as a Member of the Cameron County Board of Assistance. The public records of the State Ethics Commission indicate that Respondent was previously served with Notices of the delinquency of her Statements of Financial Interests for calendar years 1987, 1988, and 1989. It is noted that following the issuance of the Order to Show Cause, Respondent filed Statements of Financial Interests for calendar years 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, and 1991 dated May 8, 1992 and received by this Commission on May 13, 1992. Based upon the totality of circumstances in this case, we hereby levy one civil penalty against Respondent Ruth Runco at the rate of $25.00 per day, for each day Respondent's Statement of Financial Interests for calendar year 1990 has remained delinquent. Given the number of days during which the Statement of Financial Interests has remained delinquent, the resultant amount to be levied against Respondent is $250.00. III. COKLUSIONS OF LAW: 1. Respondent Ruth Runco was at all times relevant to these proceedings a Member of the Cameron County Board of Assistance and as such Respondent was a "public official" subject to the provisions of the Ethics Law, Act 9 of 1989. Ruth Runco September 18, 1992 Page 5 2. Respondent failed to comply with the requirements of Sections 4 and 5 of the Ethics Law when Respondent failed to timely file a Statement of Financial Interests for calendar year 1990 with the State Ethics Commission and the Governor's Office of Administration. Notice of the delinquency of Respondent's Statement of Financial Interests for calendar year 1990 was previously served upon Respondent in accordance with Section 7(5) of the Ethics Law, 65 P.S. §407(5). 4. Based upon the totality of the circumstances in this case, a maximum civil penalty is warranted. IN RE: RUTH RUNCO Respondent File Docket: 92 -044 -P Date Decided: September 15, 1992, Date Mailed: September 18, 1992 ORDER NO. 034 -S 1. Ruth Runco, as a Member of the Cameron County Board of Assistance, failed to comply with Sections 4 and 5 of the Ethics Law, 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. 2. Based upon the circumstances of this case, this Commission hereby levies one civil penalty against Respondent Ruth Runco at the rate of $25.00 per day for each day Respondent's Statement of Financial Interests for calendar year 1990 has remained delinquent, for the total civil penalty of $250.00 Respondent is ordered to pay the above civil penalty in the total amount of $250.00 within thirty days of the issuance of this Order, by forwarding a check to this Commission payable to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for deposit in the State Treasury. 3. Failure to comply with any provision of this Order will result in the initiation of an appropriate enforcement action. BY THE COMMISSION, Jam. Howley, hai.