Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout747 McMahonIn re: Raymond E. McMahon '3 rT STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 : File Docket: 87 -130 -C : Date Decided: May 17, 1990 : Date Mailed: May 29, 1990 Before: Helena G. Hughes, Chair Robert W. Brown, Vice Chair James M. Howley Daneen S. Reese The State Ethics Commission received a complaint regarding a possible violation of the State Ethics Act, No. 170 of 1978, 65 P.S. 401 et. seq. Written notice, of the specific allegation(s) was served at the commencement .of the investigation. A Findings Report was issued and served, upon completion of the investigation, which constituted the Complaint by the Investigation Division. An Answer was filed and a hearing was waived. The record is complete. This adjudication of the Commission is hereby issued which sets forth the individual Allegations, Findings of Fact, Discussion, Conclusions of Law and Order. This adjudication is final and will be made available as a public document fifteen days after issuance. However, reconsideration may be requested which will defer public release of this adjudication pending action on the request by the Commission. 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 2.38. The files in this case will remain confidential in accordance with Section 8(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 P.S. 408(a) during the fifteen day period and no one unless the right to challenge this. Order is waived, may violate confidentiality by releasing, discussing or circulating this Order. However, confidentiality does not preclude discussing this case with an attorney at law. Any person who violates confidentiality of the Ethics Act is guilty of a misdemeanor subject to a fine of not more than $1,000 or imprisonment for not more than one year, 65 P.S. 409(e). ADJUDICATION I. Allegation: That you, former Executive Director of the Bradford Redevelopment Authority, violated the following provisions of the Ethics Act, (Act 170 of 1978), when you made presentations to the Authority from March, 1985, to August, 1985, to purchase property on behalf of the E. W. Bisett and Son, Incorporated after resigning as Executive Director in September, 1984: Section 3. Restricted activities. (e) No former shall represent a compensation, on governmental body associated for one body. 65 P.S. 403. 2. You also served as the Redevelopment Authority. official or public employee person, with or without any matter before the with which he has been year after he leaves that A. Findinas: 1. You served as the Executive Director of the Bradford Redevelopment Authority. a. You served in this position from 1974 to September of 1984. Executive Director of the Beaver County a. You served in this position from October, 1984 through April of 1985. 3. In March of 1985, you initiated part -time employment with E. W. Bisett and Son, Incorporated of Bradford, Pennsylvania. a. You became a full -time employee of this entity and served as general manager from May, 1985 until September of 1987. 4. E. W. Bisett and Son, Incorporated was involved in purchasing tracts of land in the Bradford area for purposes of constructing buildings and for expansion thereof. 5. You were not an owner, officer, or director of the E. W. Bisett and Sons, Incorporated. a. You were compensated on a salary basis. b. You were not promised nor did you receive a bonus or commission with respect to E.W. Bisett's efforts to the purchase of land from the Bradford Redevelopment Authority. 6. On March 20, 1985, you attended a meeting on behalf of E. W. Bisett with representatives of the Bradford Redevelopment Authority. Mr. Raymond W. McMahon Page 3 a. The purpose of this meeting was to indicate the company's desire to purchase certain land from the Bradford Redevelopment Authority for future use. 7. On June 11, 1985, you authorized and signed a letter directed to the Bradford Redevelopment Authority indicating this interest. 8. During the months of June and July, 1985, you contacted the Bradford Redevelopment Authority in order to obtain permission to view a building on land that the company was interested in acquiring. a. You secured such permission and conducted an examination of such building along with the owners of E. W. Bisett and Son, Incorporated. 9. On July 26, 1985, you delivered, to Director of the Redevelopment Authority, E. W. Bisett's proposal to purchase the land in which the company was interested and which had been advertised by the authority for public sale on July 12, 1985. 10. On August 8, 1985, you attended a meeting with the owners of E. W. Bisett and Sons, Incorporated and with representatives of the Bradford Redevelopment Authority, concerning the company's proposal. 11. During the period March of 1985 through and including August, 1985, you had various telephone conversations (approximately 5) with the Director of the Bradford Redevelopment Authority concerning the proposal to purchase the property by E.W. Bisett. 12. E.W. Bisett and Son, Incorporated attempted to purchase the property but was unsuccessful as it was sold to another bidder. 13. E.W. Bisett's bid and the bids of other parties, were not accepted by the Bradford Redevelopment Authority and subsequent thereto, new bids were solicited. E.W. Bisett did not submit a subsequent bid and the property was sold to another party who had participated in the subsequent bidding process. III. Discussion: As the Executive Director of the Bradford Redevelopment Authority, Raymond W. McMahon, hereinafter McMahon, was a public employee as that is defined under the Ethics Act. 65 P.S. 402; 51 Pa. Code Section 1.1. As such, his conduct is subject to the provisions of the Ethics Act and the restrictions therein are applicable to him. Initially, it is noted that Section 5 of Act 9 of June 26, 1989 provides, in part, as follows: "This amendatory act shall not apply to violations committed prior to the effective date Mr. Raymond W. McMahon Page 4 of this act, and causes of action initiated for such violations shall be governed by the prior law, which is continued in effect for that purpose as if this act were not in force. For the purposes of this section, a violation was committed prior to the effective date of this act if any elements of the violation occurred prior thereto." Since the occurrences in this case transpired prior to the effective date of Act 9 (June 26, 1989), we must apply the provisions of Act 170 of October 4, 1978, P.L. 883 to determine whether the Ethics Act was violated. Under Section 3(e) of the Ethics Act quoted above, this provision of law restricts a former public official or employee from representing a person with or without compensation on a matter before his governmental body for a period of one year after he leaves public service. In the instant matter McMahon was the Executive Director of both the Bradfield Redevelopment Authority and of the Beaver County Redevelopment Authority. Accordingly, both of those bodies were his former governmental bodies. Hence for a period of one year after he left each respective authority, he would be restricted under the above provision of law from representing a person before either governmental body. McMahon left the Bradford Redevelopment Authority in September of 1984 and in March of 1985 he became employed on a part time basis by E.W. Bisset and Son, Inc. of Bradford, Pennsylvania. At that time E.W. Bisset and Son, Inc. was interested in purchasing tracts of land in the Bradford area for the purpose of constructing buildings and for expansion in general. Although McMahon was neither an owner, officer or director of E.W. Bisset and Sons, Inc., he was an employee and compensated on a salary basis. On March 20, 1985, McMahon attended a meeting on behalf of E.W. Bisset with representatives of the Bradford Redevelopment Authority relative to the possibility of the purchase of certain land owned by the Bradford Redevelopment Authority. The interest in the land was confirmed in a letter of June 11, 1985 by McMahon to the Authority expressing the interests of his company. During June and July of 1985 McMahon contacted the Authority for the purpose of obtaining permission so that the owners of E.W. Bisset and Sons, Inc. could view a building on the land that the company was interested in inquiring. Finally on July 26, 1985 a proposal of E.N. Bisset to purchase the land in question was delivered by McMahon. McMahon also attended a meeting on August 8, 1985 between the owners of E.W. Bisset and Sons, Inc. and the representatives of the Authority. There were also several conversations by McMahon with the Director of the Authority during March of 1985. E.W. Bisset and Sons, Inc. attempted to purchase the property but was unsuccessful in its Mr. Raymond W. McMahon Page 5 bid. Bids were solicited at a later time, but E.W. Bisset did not participate and consequently the property was sold to a third party. In applying the provisions of the Section 3(e) of the Ethics Act to the foregoing facts, the actions of McMahon relative to his new employer constituted representation since McMahon activities were directed in furtherance of a company project to purchase certain property owned by the Authority. The contacts, the submissions and the meetings by McMahon on behalf of E.W. Bisset and Sons, Inc. constituted representation of his new employer which occurred within a one year period following termination of his service by his former governmental body, the Bradford Redevelopment Authority. Therefore, the actions of McMahon violated Section 3(e) of the Ethics Act when he represented his new employer before his former governmental body within a period of one year after termination of his service. However, given the fact that no financial gain arose to either McMahon or his employer and given the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Commission will take no further action. IV. Conclusions of Law: 1. Raymond W. McMahon as Executive Director of the Bradford Redevelopment Authority was a public employee under the Ethics Act. 2. Following his termination of service, Raymond W. became a former public employee subject to the provisions of 3(e) of the Ethics Act. McMahon Section included 3. The former governmental body of Raymond W. McMahon the Bradford and Beaver County Redevelopment Authority. 4. Raymond W. McMahon violated Section 3(e) of the Ethics Act when he represented his new employer E.W. Bisset and Sons, Inc. before his former governmental body, the Bradford Redevelopment Authority, regarding a project for the purchase of certain Authority land within a period of one year after termination of his service. In re: Raymond W. McMahon 1. Raymond W. when he represented before his former Authority, regarding land within a period Robert W. Brown dissents. : File Docket: : Date Decided: : Date Mailed: ORDER No. 747 87 -130 -C Mav 17. 1990 May 29, 1990 McMahon violated Section 3(e) of the Ethics Act his new employer E.W. Bisset and Sons, Inc. governmental body, the Bradford Redevelopment a project for the purchase of certain Authority of one year after termination of his service. 2. Given the totality of the circumstances of the case and the fact that no financial gain was obtained, this Commission will take no further action. BY THE COMMISSION, 1�. ELENA G. HUGHES CHAIR