Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1082R GrimoneIn re: Michael Grimone STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 File Docket: X -ref: Date Decided: Date Mailed: 96- 090 -C2 Order No. 1082 -R 10/8/98 10/20/98 Before: Daneen E. Reese, Chair Austin M. Lee, Vice Chair Allan M. Kluger Julius Uehlein Louis W. Fryman John J. Bolger Frank M. Brown The State Ethics Commission received a request for reconsideration of Grimone, Order No. 1082 issued on August 7, 1998. 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. 1082) as public documents on the fifth (5th) business day following the date of issuance of this Order. Grimone, Order No. 1082 -R Page 2 DISCUSSION On August 7, 1998, we issued Grimone, Order No. 1082, following our review of the record in this case. The allegations were that Grimone violated Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 by using the authority of office or confidential information for the private pecuniary benefit of a business with which his brother is associated by participating in actions as to contracts or purchases by the school district from that business, by authorizing payments to that business, and by disclosing confidential information to his brother. We determined that Grimone violated Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 of the Ethics Law when he used the authority of office for the private pecuniary benefit of his brother's business as to School District purchases of 40 televisions and a camcorder from his brother's business and his authorization to make payments to that business. A technical violation was found when Grimone co- signed a purchase order for the purchase of six VCR's /televisions by the School District from his brother's business. We decided that Grimone did not violate Section 3(a) as to the disclosure of confidential information to his brother regarding the submission of bids to the School District for supplying 40 televisions due to a lack of clear and convincing proof. Grimone was directed to make payment of $ 1080 through this Commission to the Cameron County School District within 30 days of the date of mailing of this order. Grimone made payment of $ 1080 on September 4, 1998 and has not sought reconsideration. As to Order No. 1082, the Investigative Division timely filed a Petition for Reconsideration regarding our finding of no violation of Section 3(a) as to the allegation of using confidential information. The Investigative Division also requested oral argument to advocate for the grant of reconsideration. The Investigative Division's argument is that we made a legal error by not accepting circumstantial evidence as a basis for finding a violation of the Ethics Law. While it is true that circumstantial evidence as well as direct evidence are probative for finding a violation of the Ethics Law, our decision on the confidentiality issue was based upon All of the evidence (including circumstantial), which did not establish by clear and convincing proof that a violation had occurred. Since we agree with the Investigative Division that circumstantial evidence may be used to establish a violation of the Ethics Law, we do not see the need for oral argument. We disagree that the evidence in this particular case established a violation as to the use of confidential information by clear and convincing proof. No argument has been raised by the Investigative Division which would meet the requisite standard for reconsideration. No material error of law has been established. No material error of fact has been asserted. Similarly, no new facts or evidence has been proffered which would lead to a reversal or modification of the Order 1082. The request for oral argument and the Petition for Reconsideration are denied. In re: Micheal Grimone File Docket: 96- 090 -C2 Date Decided: 10/8/98 Date Mailed: 10/20/98 RECONSIDERATION ORDER NO. 1082 -R 1. The request for oral argument by the Investigative Division on its Petition for Reconsideration is denied. 2. The Petition for Reconsideration by the Investigative Division of Grimone, Order No. 1082, is denied. BY THE COMMISSION, Zia, us Au E &iv, DANEEN E. REESE, CHAIR