Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout964-R Coccarimade. made. Before: 51 Pa. Code §21.29(b), (e). STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 In re: Barbara Coccari File Docket: 92- 031 -C2 Date Decided: 05/04/95 Date Mailed: 05/16/95 Daneen E. Reese, Chair Austin M. Lee, Vice Chair Roy W. Wilt Allan M. Rluger John R. Showers Boyd E. Wolff The State Ethics Commission received a request for reconsideration on March 24, 1995, with respect to Order 964 issued on March 10, 1995. 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. (e) Reconsideration may be granted at the discretion of the Commission if: (1) A material error of law has been (2) A material error of fact has been (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. 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 as public documents on the fifth (5th) business day following the date of issuance of this Order. ADJUDICATION Barbara Coccari, hereinafter Coccari, has requested reconsideration of Coccari, Order 964, issued on March 10, 1995. After referencing the Conclusion of Law and Order, Coccari argues that this Commission has no authority to refer this matter to the U.S. Attorney, Pennsylvania Attorney General or Greene County District Attorney. Coccari then cites the Preamble to the Ethics Law, Section 6 dealing with the independent nature of this Commission, Section 7 dealing with the powers to publish rulemaking, the jurisdiction of this Commission as to public officials /employees and Section 8(a) as to the referral of matters for review. Coccari argues that because this Commission's powers are limited by the Ethics Law, we cannot refer this matter for review because it would broaden our investigatory powers and circumvent the purpose of the Ethics Law. Further, the public disclosure of Order 964, it is asserted, would serve no valid purpose but would subject Coccari to accusations of criminal behavior which would be perpetuated. Lastly, even if referral authority exists, Coccari argues that we lack the authority to make findings or offer opinions as to Coccari's guilt which will prejudice her ability to receive a fair and impartial review before any other tribunal. Reconsideration is sought to delete the referral language in the order, to remove all findings as to the misappropriation of funds and to seal and hence not publicly release the order. This Commission has the power to refer cases under Section 8(a) of the Ethics Law: (a) . . . The commission shall, however, have the authority to refer the case to law enforcement officials during a preliminary inquiry or anytime thereafter without providing notice to the subject of the inquiry. 65 P.S. §408(a). The Regulations of this Commission also provide: §21.30. Effect of order. In addition to deciding the case before it, the Commission may take one or more of the following actions, if appropriate. The Commission may: (4) Refer the matter for review or with a specific recommendation for action to law enforcement, regulatory or other authorities with jurisdiction over the matters. Coccari, 92- 031 -C2; Order 964 -R Page 2 The above power is unequivocal and without limitation. In exercising such power, we believe that referral is absolutely warranted in this case. Further, there is authority to suggest that an investigation of this Commission is required before other proceedings may go forward. Sheers v. Higgins, 120 Pa. Commw. Ct. 572, 549 A.2d 614 (1988). As to the matter of removing any findings as to the misappropriation of funds, the adjudication forms the basis for the referral. As to the issue of sealing and not publicly releasing the order, the Ethics Law provides in part: (g) . . . The determination of the commission, in the form of a final order and findings of fact, shall be a matter of public record. 65 P.S. §408(g). There is no material error of law or fact nor new facts or evidence presented to warrant the exercise of our discretion to grant reconsideration. In light of the foregoing, the request for reconsideration is denied. In re: Barbara Coccari File Docket: 92- 031 -C2 : Date Decided: 05/04/95 . Date Mailed: 05/16/95 RECONSIDERATION ORDER NO. 964 -R 1. The request to reconsider Order 964, issued on March 10, 1995, is denied. BY THE COMMISSION„, .06 E PuA,2 DANEEN E. REESE, CHAIR Commissioners Austin M. Lee and Boyd E. Wolff abstained as to the decision of this matter.