Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout040-S StorkIN RE: JANICE C. STORK 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 -047 -P Date Decided: September 15, 1992 Date Mailed: September 18, 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 A.S. S401 et sea. 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. An Answer was filed and 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). Janice C. Stork September 18, 1992 Page 2 I. FINDING S : 1. Respondent Janice C. Stork is an adult individual who resides or maintains a mailing address at 442 West Walnut Street, Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17603. 2. Respondent is now and at all times relevant to these proceedings has been a Member of the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency. (a) Respondent specifically held the aforesaid position. in 1991. (b) Respondent admits that she is subject to the provisions of the Ethics Law. 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. (a) Respondent admits that the Statement of Financial Interests for calendar year 1990 was not so filed. 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. (a) Respondent admits that Exhibit "A" to the Order to Show Cause is a true and correct copy of the Notice letter sent to her. (b) Respondent admits that she received the aforesaid Notice letter. 5. 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. (a) Respondent states that upon receipt of the said Notice letter, Respondent prepared and filed the Statement of Financial Interests but was under the misapprehension Janice C. Stork September 18, 1992 Page 3 that the filing of the Statement of Financial Interests with the City Clerk for the City of Lancaster was the only filing necessary and did not appreciate that a dual filing was required. (b) Respondent states that she is not an attorney at law and thought that if the document was available in the public records of the City of Lancaster, such a filing fulfilled her duties. 6. Respondent has submitted a copy of her Statement of Financial Interests for calendar year 1990, dated July 4, 1991, which Respondent indicates was filed by Respondent with the City Clerk for the City of Lancaster. (a) According to the said Statement of Financial Interests, Respondent is the Mayor of the City of Lancaster. (b) Blocks 6 and 7 of the said Statement of Financial Interests do not disclose Respondent's public office as a Member of the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency. (c) Block 11 of the said Statement of Financial Interests lists "investments" as a source of income without providing any identification or addresses for such sources of income. 7. Respondent avers as follows: (a) The public policy-behind the Ethics Law is to satisfy-the public's need to have information readily available to it regarding the financial activities of public officials. (b) Respondent made the requested information publicly available within the requested time period. (c) The instant proceedings have been instituted, not because Respondent failed to file, but because the document was filed in the incorrect public office which is a mere technical violation of the law and should not subject Respondent to heavy administrative penalties for mere inadvertence. (d) Penalizing Respondent in this case would serve to discourage other qualified persons from undertaking public positions which would expose them to prosecution under the Ethics Law. Janice C. Stork September 18, 1992 Page 4 II. DISCUSSION: Respondent is now and at all times relevant to these proceedings has been a Member of the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency. Respondent specifically held the aforesaid position in 1991. As a Member of the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency, Respondent is a "public official" as that term is defined under the Public Official and Employee Ethics Law ( "Ethics Law "), 65 P.S. 5401, et seg., 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. 55404,405. 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. 5409(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 has admitted receiving the said Notice letter. Respondent did not remedy the failure to file a Statement of Financial Interests for calendar year 1990 with the State Ethics Commission and the Governor's Office of Administration, although given fourteen days from the date of the aforesaid Notice letter in which to do so. This Commission then instituted formal proceedings against Respondent by issuing an Janice C. Stork September 18, 1992 Page 5 Order to Show Cause, ordering Respondent to show cause why a civil penalty should not be levied against Respondent. Respondent's Answer to the Order to Show Cause has failed to show cause why a civil penalty should not be levied against Respondent in this matter. Respondent avers that upon receipt of the aforesaid June 18, 1991 Notice letter, Respondent prepared the Statement of Financial Interests and filed it with the City Clerk for the City of Lancaster, being under the "misapprehension" that the filing with the City Clerk was the only filing necessary and not appreciating that a dual filing was required. Respondent states that she is not an attorney at law and thought that if the document was available in the public records of the City of Lancaster, such a filing fulfilled her duties. Of course, Respondent is presumed to know the law, and the fact that she is not an attorney at law is neither unique nor dispositive of the issue before this Commission. Furthermore, Respondent's misfiling is not justifiable. The Notice letter which Responden_ t admits she received clearly spelled out the filing instructions, stating that the form was to be filed with this Commission and the Governor's Office of Administration, and providing the addresses for each location. At best, Respondent's averred filing with the City Clerk evidenced a lack of intent to violate the Ethics Law. Intent is not a requisite element for a violation of the Ethics Law. See, Yacobet v. Com., State Ethics Comm'n, 531 A.2d 536 (1987). However, the lack of intent to violate the Ethics Law maybe deemed a mitigating circumstance in determining whether and in what amount a civil penalty should be levied. Respondent's apparent lack of intent to fail to comply with Sections 4 and 5 of the Ethics Law shall be viewed as a mitigating circumstance in determining the civil penalty to be levied against her. Turning to the public policy arguments advanced by Respondent, the stated purpose of the Ethics Law provides, in pertinent part: Section 1. Purpose (a) The legislature hereby declares that public office is a public trust and that any effort to realize personal financial gain through public office other than compensation provided by law is a violation of that trust. In order to strengthen the faith and confidence of the people of the State in their government, the Legislature further declares that the people have a right to be assured that the financial interests of holders of or nominees or candidates for public office do Janice C. Stork September 18, 1992 Page 6 not conflict with the public trust. Because public confidence in government can best be sustained by assuring the people of the impartiality and honesty of public officials, this act shall be liberally construed to promote complete financial disclosure as specified in this act. . . . 65 P.S. 5401(a). Thus, the purpose of the Ethics Law includes providing full financial disclosure to the public. In this case, Respondent is a public official both as Mayor of the City of Lancaster and as a Member of the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency. The provisions of the Ethics Law apply to Respondent in both of these distinct public offices. Respondent's filing with the City of Lancaster was appropriate for her position as Mayor of the City of Lancaster. But Respondent could not justifiably assume that by meeting the filing requirements for one -of her positions as Mayor of the City, she had met the filing requirements for her other position as a public official for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Ethics Law designates filing locations based upon the governmental body which is served. This results in predictable filing locations so that the public may meaningfully access these documents. Neither the public nor the Respondent could reasonably expect the filing for a Commonwealth public official to be at the City of Lancaster. In her capacity as a public official for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Respondent failed to make complete or even meaningful disclosure by filing her Statement of Financial Interests with the City of Lancaster. This is particularly true in light of the fact that Respondent's Statement of Financial Interests filed with the City Clerk for the City of Lancaster fails to even disclose her public office as a Member of the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency. Respondent characterizes her error as a "mere technical violation of law," which should not subject her to "heavy administrative penalties for mere inadvertence." (Answer of Respondent, at Paragraph 10). In light of the stated purpose of the Ethics Law set forth above, we cannot view the failure to comply with these filing requirements as a "mere technical violation." Nor do we view a civil penalty which, by law, is limited to a maximum of $250.00 per violation, to be a heavy administrative penalty. As for Respondent's speculation of a chilling effect upon others who would hold public office if a civil penalty is levied against her, we need only state that there is no factual or legal basis to exempt Respondent from Section 9(f) as it applies to all Janice C. Stork September 18, 1992 Page 7 other public officials /public employees. Based upon the totality of circumstances in this case, we hereby levy one civil penalty against Respondent Janice C. Stork in the total amount of $1.00. In levying the aforesaid civil penalty, we are cognizant that we could assess a per diem civil penalty against Respondent up to the total maximum amount of Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250.00) allowed by the Ethics Law, but have determined that an appropriate exercise of our discretion in this case would be to assess a nominal penalty in the total amount of `$1.00. Respondent's Statement of Financial Interests for calendar year 1990 remains deficient. (See, Finding 6(c)). Respondent shall be ordered to file an amended, complete and accurate Statement of Financial Interests for calendar year 1990, correcting all deficiencies as noted above and providing full financial disclosure as required by the Ethics Law. III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: 1. Respondent Janice C. Stork is now and at all times relevant to these proceedings has been a Member of the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency and as such Respondent is a "public official" subject to the provisions of the Ethics Law, Act 9 of 1989. 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. 3. 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. 5407(5). 4. Respondent's Statement of Financial Interests for calendar year 1990, dated July 4, 1991, and received by the State Ethics Commission on May 26, 1992, is technically deficient. IN RE: JANICE C. STORK Respondent : File Docket: 92 -047 -P : Date Decided: September 15, 1992 Date Mailed: September 18. 1992 ORDER NO. 040 -S 1. Janice C. Stork, as a Member of the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency, failed to comply with Sections 4 and 5 of the Ethics Law, 65 P.S. 5$404, 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, a nominal penalty in the amount of $1.00 is hereby levied against Respondent Janice C. Stork. Respondent is ordered to pay the above penalty-in the total amount of $1.00 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. Respondent Janice C. Stork is directed within 30 days of issuance of this Order to file an amended, complete and accurate Statement of Financial Interests for calendar year 1990 with the State Ethics Commission and the Governor's Office of Administration, correcting all technical deficiencies noted above and providing full financial disclosure as required by the Ethics Law. 4. Failure to comply with any provision of this Order will result in the initiation of an appropriate enforcement action. BY THE COMMISSION, Commissioner Austin M. Lee dissents as to the imposition of merely a nominal penalty.