Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1050R SpottsIn re: Joseph F. Spotts, Jr. STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 File Docket: X -Ref: Date Decided: Date Mailed: 96- 015 -C2 Order No. 1050 -R 8/14/97 8/26/97 Before: Daneen E. Reese, Chair Austin M. Lee, Vice Chair Roy W. Wilt Allan M. Kluger Rev. Joseph G. Quinn Boyd E. Wolff Julius Uehlein The State Ethics Commission received a request for reconsideration on July 11, 1997, with respect to Order No. 1050 issued on June 11, 1997. Pursuant to Section 21.29 of the Regulations of the Commission, the discretion of the State Ethics Commission to grant reconsideration is properly invoked as follows: §21.29. Finality: reconsideration. (b) Any party may ask the Commission to reconsider an order or opinion within 15 days of service of the order or opinion. The requestor shall present a detailed explanation setting forth the reason why the order or opinion should be reconsidered. (c) A request for reconsideration filed with the Commission will delay the public release of an order, but will not suspend the final order unless reconsideration is granted by the Commission. (d) A request for reconsideration may include a request for a hearing before the Commission. (e) Reconsideration may be granted at the discretion of the Commission if: (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 or opinion and if these could not be or were not discovered by the exercise of due diligence. 51 Pa. Code §21.29(b), (c), (d), (e). This adjudication of the Commission is hereby issued which sets forth the Discussion and Reconsideration Order. This Reconsideration Order is final and shall be made available with Order No. 1050 as public documents on the fifth (5th) business day following the date of issuance of this Order. DISCUSSION On June 11, 1997, we issued Spotts, Order No. 1050, following our review of the record in this case. The allegation was that Joseph Spotts, Jr. (Spotts), a public official /public employee, in his capacity as a Councilman for Cressona Borough, Schuylkill County, , violated Sections 3(a) and 3(f) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Law, Act 9 of 1989, when he used the authority of his office for the private pecuniary benefit of himself or a business with which he is associated by participating in actions of the Borough in relation to the provision of snow removal services and when a business with which he is associated contracted with the Borough in relation to the provision of snow removal services which contract was in excess of $500 and was not awarded through an open and public process. In applying the allegation to the facts of record, we found that: 1. Spotts violated Section 3(a) of the Ethics Law when he used the authority of his public office for a private pecuniary benefit in the amount of $1,522.23 as to the snow removal services he performed for the Borough. 2. Spotts violated Section 3(f) when he contracted with his governmental body, Cressona Borough, to perform snow removal services for an amount in excess of $500 without an open and public process. 3. Restitution in the amount of $1,522.23 is warranted. Following the issuance of Order No. 1050, Spotts timely sought reconsideration. The Investigative Division filed an Answer with New Matter arguing that Spotts provided no legal or factual errors to meet the regulatory requirement for the exercise of our discretion to grant reconsideration. Spotts has raised the following in support of his request for reconsideration. Spotts contends that Order No. 1050 which requires restitution to be made to the Borough of Cressona is in error because the funds in question came from the government and the witness from the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency (PEMA) stated that the Borough was not entitled to the funds if they were not distributed to Spotts. Raising a question as to the appropriate governmental body to receive the restitution as per Section 7(13) of Act 9 of 1989, 65 P.S. §407(13), does not constitute a material error of fact or law as to our finding violations of Act 9 of 1989 and ordering restitution. Spotts argues that the findings relative to the September 6, 1997 [sic] vote of Cressona Borough Council are not supported by the evidence because the testimony is clear that all members voted in favor thus satisfying the requirement of an open and public process for approval of the payment. The vote at the September 6, 1994 meeting was limited to the payment for snow plowing services. The bill approval was neither an authorization under Section 3(a) nor an open and public bid process under Section 3(f) of the Ethics Law as to such services which already had been performed. Finally, Spotts asserts that the lack of intent requires a finding of no violation. We have already noted that intent is not a requirement to establish a violation of the Ethics Law. Yacobet v. SEC, 531 A.2d 536 (1987). No argument has been raised by Spotts which would meet the requisite standard for reconsideration. No material error of law has been established. No material error of fact has been established. No new facts or evidence has been provided which would lead to a reversal or modification of the Order. Spotts has failed to meet his burden of proof to establish any need for reconsideration. The Petition for Reconsideration is denied. In re: Joseph F. Spotts, Jr. File Docket: 96- 015 -C2 Date Decided: 8/14/97 Date Mailed: 8/26/97 RECONSIDERATION ORDER NO. 1050 -R The Petition for Reconsideration of Spotts, Order No. 1050, is denied BY THE COMMISSION, 0Y0Auou6 ettig DANEEN E. REESE, CHAIR