HomeMy WebLinkAbout758 GoodeIn re: W. Wilson Goode
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120
: File Docket: 86 -189 -C
. Date Decided: August 16. 190
Date Mailed: August 24, 1990
Before: Helena G. Hughes, Chair
Robert W. Brown, Vice Chair
G. Sieber Pancoast
Dennis C. Harrington
James M. Howley
Daneen E. 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 allegations 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. Stipulated
Findings were submitted 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 1 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).
S5.12. Gifts.
ADJUDICATION
I. ALLEGATION: That you, Mayor of the City of Philadelphia,
violated the following provisions of the Ethics Act (Act 170 of 1978),
when you received suits of clothing from Nicholas DiPiero that were
purchased with Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union funds
and the personal checks of Nicholas DiPiero and, when you failed to
report the receipt of the suits on Statements of Financial Interests
filed in 1984, 1985 and 1986.
Section 3. Restricted Activities.
(a) No public official or public employee shall
use his public office or any confidential
information received through his holding public
office to obtain financial gain other than
compensation provided by law for himself, a member
of his immediate family, or a business with which
he is associated. 65 P.S. §403(a).
(b) No person shall offer or give to a public
official or public employee or candidate for
public office or a member of his immediate family
or a business with which he is associated, and no
public official or public employee or candidate
for public office shall solicit or accept,
anything of value, including a gift, loan,
political contribution, reward, or promise of
future employment based on any understanding that
the vote, official action, or judgment of the
public official or public employee or candidate
for public office would be influenced thereby. 65
P.S. S403(b).
Section Statement of financial interests.
(b) The statement shall include the following
information for the prior calendar year with
regard to the person required to file the
statement and the members of his immediate family:
(5) The name and address of any person who is the
direct or indirect source of income totalling in
the aggregate $500 or more. However, this
provision shall not be construed to require the
divulgence of confidential information protected
by statute or existing professional codes of
ethics. 65 P.S. §405(b)(5).
(a) Persons required to disclose shall report all
gifts which have a fair market value of $200 or
Mr. W. Wilson Goode
Page 2
more received by the person required to file, his
spouse, or minor dependent children. 51 Pa. Code
S5.12(a).
II. FINDINGS:
1. W. Wilson Goode served as Mayor of the City of Philadelphia
from January of 1984 until the present.
2. W. Wilson Goode was a candidate for the Office of Mayor
during 1983, having resigned as Managing Director of the
City of Philadelphia in December 1982.
3. In the late 1970's and early 1980's the clothing
manufacturing business in the City of Philadelphia began to
decline as many clothing manufacturing operations left
Philadelphia and set up manufacturing operations in other
parts of the country.
a. In an effort to address this situation, the
Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union
( "Union ") undertook to advertise the quality of
suits manufactured in Philadelphia. These efforts
included a campaign called "Philadelphia Dresses
the World" in which, among other things, numerous
elected and appointed public officials in
Philadelphia were provided with suits manufactured
in Philadelphia by such Philadelphia companies as
Pincus Brothers - Maxwell, Botany 500, H. Freeman &
Son, Inc., and Stanley Blacker.
4. As part of this campaign, Mayor Goode, as a candidate for
and as the Mayor of Philadelphia, received through the
Union, during the years 1983 to 1985, a number of suits
manufactured by Pincus Brothers - Maxwell, Botany 500, H.
Freeman & Son, Inc., and Stanley Blacker.
5. In 1983, prior to Mayor Goode's election to office and prior
to his nomination as a candidate, records of the union
ridi a a e" t� t t s sne f - vh ,union
-°
manufactured by Stanley Blacker (invoice #NF13451, 2/10/83,
in the amount of $395.63) and five of which were
manufactured by Botany 500 (invoice #160509, 7/11/83, in
the amount of $510.00).
a. Union records indicate that the suits were sold to
and shipped to Nick DiPiero, co- manager of the
Union, at Union headquarters, 2115 South Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Mr. W. Wilson Goode
Page 3
b. Union records further indicate that a Union check
( #540) in the amount of $395.63 was issued on
February 10, 1983 for the five suits from Stanley
Blacker and that a Union check ( #552) in the
amount of $510.00 was issued on July 15, 1983 for
the suits from Botany 500.
6. Mayor Goode only recalls receiving five suits, three from
Stanley Blacker and two from Botany 500.
a. Mayor Goode recalls that he paid cash in the
amount of $450.00 for said suits.
7. In December 1983, after Mayor Goode's election and before
inauguration, he received three suits from Pincus Brother -
Maxwell.
a. Union records indicate that an invoice ( #73073)
dated January 11, 1984 for $150.00 was issued to
John DeMeo, a Union official. Records further
indicate that a Union check ( #566) in the amount
of $150.00 was issued on January 26, 1984 for
these suits.
8. In 1984, Mayor Goode received two suits from Pincus
Brothers - Maxwell.
a. Union records indicate that an invoice ( #78700)
dated December 6, 1984 for $100.00 was issued to
N. DiPiero.
b. Union records further indicate that the invoice
showed the wholesale price as $250.00 and that a
Travelers Express money order ( #741538629) in the
amount of $100.00, signed by Frank Pepe, was
issued on December 18, 1984 for these suits.
9. In 1984, Mayor Goode received four suits from Pincus
Brothers- Maxwell (invoice #19005, 4/6/84), which Mayor Goode
returned unused because they were too large:
a. Union records indicate that a Travelers Express
money order dated 4/17/84 ( #730682198) in the
amount of $200.00 signed by Frank Pepe Treasurer
of the Union was sent to Pincus Brothers - Maxwell.
10. In 1985, Mayor Goode received nine suits from Pincus
Brothers - Maxwell.
Mr. W. Wilson Goode
Page 4
a. Union records indicate that invoices for these
suits dated January 24, 1985 ( #21340), May 17,
1985 ( #82147) and September 9, 1985 ( #83293) were
issued to Mr. DiPiero.
b. The invoices showed the wholesale price as
$978.00.
c. Mayor Goode recalls that David Pincus of Pincus
Brothers - Maxwell advised him that $125.00 each was
the wholesale cost of such suits.
11. Records of Pincus Brothers - Maxwell indicate they received
a letter from Velma Goode, dated December 2, 1985. The
transmitted letter refers to an enclosed check in the amount
of $1,359 as payment for invoices #73073, 78700, 23140,
82147 and 83293. (Findings 7 to 10 above) The letter
indicates the payment of $1,359 is less the $200 that was
paid to Nick DiPiero. The letter also states that payment
is not being made for the suits listed on invoice #19005 as
the suits were not received. (Finding 9 above)
12. In 1985, Mayor Goode received five suits from H. Freeman &
Son, Inc. H. Freeman issued three invoices dated July 2,
1985 ( #61257, #61258, #61259) and two invoices dated July 3,
1985 ( #61330, #61331) to Mr. DiPiero showing unit prices of
$150.00 per suit, for a total of $750.00. A Fidelity Bank
money order ( #8094141), dated July 11, 1985, in the amount
of $300.00, payable to H. Freeman & Sons, Inc., was
purchased by Mr. DiPiero.
13. On November 8, 1985, by personal check Mayor Goode paid to
Mr. DiPiero $472.00 to reimburse him for the three July 2,
1985 invoices from H. Freeman ( #61257, #61258 and #61259).
On December 2, 1985, Mayor Goode sent a personal check
directly to H. Freeman for $300.00 to pay the two July 3,
1985 invoices ( #61330 and #61331).
14. Records of H. Freeman indicate that the company received a
letter from Mayor Wilson Goode, dated . December .2,„ 1 _The
letter states that an enclosed check in the amount of
$300.00 is for payment of invoices #61330 and 61331. The
letter also states that $472.00 was previously paid to
Nicholas DiPiero for invoices 61257, 61258 and 61259. The
letter contains a notation at the bottom stating that the
$300.00 check was returned because of a cash payment made by
Nick DiPiero in July of 1985.
15. The issue of Mayor Goode's receipt of suits has primarily
been addressed by the City of Philadelphia Board of Ethics.
Mr. W. Wilson Goode
Page 5
16. On November 21, 1985 the Board notified Mayor Goode of the
disclosure requirements that may apply to those who have
received suits or other clothing through arrangements made
by Nicholas DiPiero of the union.
17. On December 31, 1985 Mayor Goode responded with a letter to
the Board outlining the way that he received the suits from
various manufacturers and the reason why he feels they did
not constitute a gift.
a. He stated that all suits were obtained with the
understanding that he was to pay the wholesale
price that was available to other customers of the
manufacturer.
b. He stated that he asked for the wholesale price so
that he could make payment.
c. He stated that invoices were sent to DiPiero and
he requested DiPiero to forward them to him, but
that did not happen immediately.
d. He added that he did not pursue the matter as
rapidly as he should have and when the invoices
did arrive the cost of some of the suits appeared
to be below the wholesale price. This made it
necessary for his staff to obtain the correct
price.
e. He stated that once he was given the correct
prices the bills were paid.
f. He explained that in 1983, prior to taking office,
he received 3 suits. The invoice contained the
price of $150.00 for the 3 suits when the actual
cost was $331.00. The amount was paid in December
of 1985.
He explained that in December of 1984 he received
2 suits. The invoice contained a price of $100.00
for the suits when the wholesale price was
actually $250.00. The amount was paid in December
of 1985.
h. He explained that in 1985 he received 14 suits for
which he paid a total of $1,750.00 he stated that
was the wholesale price for the suits.
i. Mayor Goode requested an opinion from the Board as
Mr. W. Wilson Goode
Page 6
Mayor Goode also requested an opinion regarding
the purchase of items at a wholesale price that
were available to others in the public. He stated
that he was informed by the City Solicitor that
such a price would constitute a fair market value
and that he believed his purchases fell within
this guideline.
18. The City Board of Ethics responded to the Mayor Goode's
request in a letter dated February 24, 1986. The text
of that letter provides, in part, as follows:
a. Based upon the facts stated, the opinion of the
Board is that the prices paid, notwithstanding
that such price might have been labeled a
"wholesale" or "discount" price, constitute "fair
market value" for purposes of the disclosure
requirements in respect of the Mayor's Executive
Order Financial Disclosure Statement for 1984 and
in respect of the City of Philadelphia Statement
of Financial Interests for 1983 or 1984.
b. The Board notes that its opinion on this issue is
limited to the facts as stated to the Board and
should not be deemed a precedent applicable to any
other transactions because the Board's opinion is
dependent upon those particular facts.
c. The Board determined that the 1983 filings need
not be amended.
d. The basis of the Board's opinion in this respect
was premised upon the statement that it was the
Mayor's intention to pay for such suits from his
personal funds.
to whether his previous filings of the
Philadelphia Statements of Financial Interests
should be amended.
Concerning calendar year 1984 the Board was of the
opinion that a disclosure should have been
included, although the circumstances present a
close factual question as to whether such
disclosure was required. The facts as disclosed
concerning 1984 are that two suits, having a fair
market value, of $250 were received, but not paid
for until 1985.
f. It was the opinion of the Board that, under
Mr. W. Wilson Goode
Page 7
g
circumstances in which the three suits received in
1983 had not been invoiced or paid for at the end
of 1984, and the two suits received in 1984 had
also not been invoiced or paid for at the end of
1984, a disclosure of the transactions in the
financial disclosure forms in respect of 1984
would have been appropriate.
The board further stated that it could not
conclude that such disclosure was manifestly
required.
h. The Board concluded that whatever disclosure might
have been appropriate or required in respect of
the calendar year 1984 has now been made as a
result the letter of December 31, 1985 to the
Board, which is, to be filed with the City
Department of Records and placed with the 1984
Disclosure Forms.
In respect of the year 1985, it is the opinion of
the Board that the letter of December 31, 1985
should accompany the disclosure filings for that
year also, so as to obviate any questions as to
whether formal disclosure is required.
19. State Ethics Commission Statements of Financial Interest for
W. Wilson Goode, on file in Room 164, City Hall,
Philadelphia, PA, disclose the following:
a. 1982: Filed as Managing Director on April 27, 1982
for the 1981 calendar year.
Sources of Income: City of Philadelphia
Gifts: None
b. 1983: Filed as candidate for Mayor and former
employee on March 7, 1983 for the 1982 calendar
year.
Sources of Income: City of Philadelphia
Gifts: None
c. 1984: Filed as incumbent Mayor on May 1, 1984 for
the 1983 calendar year.
Sources of Income: Charen, Palitz and Rosenberg
Gifts: None
d. 1985: Filed as Mayor on May 1, 1985 for the 1984
calendar year.
Sources of Income: City of Philadelphia
Gifts: None
Mr. W. Wilson Goode
Page 8
e. 1986: Filed as Mayor on May 1, 1986 for the 1985
calendar year.
Sources of Income: City of Philadelphia
Gifts: None (See Attached)
(1) The attachments to the 1986 Statement of
Financial Interests explain the number
of suits obtained by Wilson Goode in
1983, 1984 and 1985 and the details of
how they were obtained. The
attachment indicates that Mayor Goode
received 24 suits during that time
with 19 of them obtained with the
assistance of Nicholas DiPiero.
20. In 1987, Nicholas DiPiero was charged with unlawful
conversion of union funds. After a jury trial in June 1987,
he was acquitted of these charges. United States vs.
DiPiero, Criminal No. 87- 00037, United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
21. Trial testimony in U.S. vs. DiPiero disclosed the following
facts:
a. Numerous elected and appointed officials in
Philadelphia received suits through the Union.
b. Almost no elected or appointed officials in
Philadelphia who received suits through the Union
either requested invoices or paid for their suits
out of their personal funds.
c. Records relating to the Union's "Special Account ",
which was used to pay for suits for public
officials, in some instances, were non - existent or
falsified in order to conceal personal use of the
"Special Account" by Union officials.
d. Some suits, which
"Special Account"
included a number
never received by
are allegedly charged to the
and which appear to have
of suits for Mayor Goode, were
the alleged recipients.
III. Discussion: As the Mayor of the City of Philadelphia, W. Wilson
Goode, hereinafter Goode, is a public official as that term is defined
under the Ethics Act. 65 P.S. S402; 51 Pa. Code S1.1. As such, he is
subject to the provisions of the Ethics Act and the restrictions
therein are applicable to him.
Mr. W. Wilson Goode
Page 9
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
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(a), quoted above, this Commission has determined
that use of office by a public official to obtain a financial gain for
himself or a member of his immediate family or a business with which
he is associated which is not provided for in law transgresses the
above provision of law. Thus, use of office by a public official to
obtain a financial gain which is not authorized as part of his
compensation is prohibited by Section 3(a): Hoak /McCutcheon v. State
Ethics Commission, 77 Pa. Commw. Ct. 529, 466 A.2d 283 (1983); Yacobet
v. State Ethics Commission, 109 Pa. Commw. Ct. 432 531 A.2d 536
(1987). Similarly, Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act would prohibit a
public official /employee from using public office to advance his own
interests; Koslow v. State Ethics Commission, 116 Pa. Commw. Ct. 19,
540 A.2d 1374 (1988). Likewise, a public official /employee may not
use the status or position of public office for his own personal
advantage; Huff, Opinion 84 -015.
Under Section 3(b) quoted above, this provisions requires that no
person or public official /employee may offer or receive anything of
value based upon the understanding that the vote, official action or
judgment of the public official /employee would be influenced thereby.
As to Section 5(b)(5) of the Ethics Act quoted above, this
provision requires a public official /employee to list on his Financial
Interests Statements the name and address of any person who is a
direct or indirect source of income totalling $500 or more in
aggregate. In addition, 51 Pa. Code §5.12 requires the listing of
gifts on the Financial Interests Statement as to all gifts received
having a fair market value of $200 or more.
In the instant matter, the allegation before us relates to the
Mr. W. Wilson Goode
Page 10
receipt of various mens suits by Goode in 1983 when he was Mayoral
candidate and in 1984 and 1985 when he served as Mayor of the City
Philadelphia.
During the 1970's and 1980's there was a decline in the clothing
manufacturing business in the City of Philadelphia and a campaign was
begun by the Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union,
hereinafter Union, to advertise the quality of suits manufactured in
Philadelphia. The campaign called "Philadelphia Dress is the World"
used a format to advertise the quality of the suits by providing
manufactured suits to various elected and appointed public officials.
Both as a candidate and mayor, Goode received through the Union a
number of suits manufactured by Pincus Brothers - Maxwell, Botany 500,
H. Freeman & Son, Inc. and Stanley Blacker during the years 1983 to
1985. A review of the records of the Union reflect that in 1983 Goode
received ten suits of which five were manufactured by Stanley Blacker
and five by Botany 500. The Union records indicate that the suits
were sold to Nick DiPiero, co- manager of the Union, with payment by a
Union check for $395.63 for the five Stanley Blacker suits and a Union
check in the amount of $510 for the five Botany 500 suits. As to
these suits, Goode's recollection is that he only received five suits:
three from Stanley Blacker and two from Botany 500.
Thereafter, in December 1983, which was the interim period
between Goode's election and his inauguration, he received three
suits from Pincus Brothers - Maxwell. The Union records reflect that
an invoice in the amount of $150 was issued to John DeMeo, a Union
official, and that a union check in the amount of $150 was issued on
January 26, 1984 for the three suits. In 1984, Goode received an
additional two suits from Pincus Brothers - Maxwell. In this regard,
the Union records indicate that an invoice in the amount of $100 was
issued to N. DiPiero although that invoice showed the wholesale price
to be $250. Payment followed by a Travelers Express Money Order in
the amount of $100 signed by Frank Pepe for those suits. Goode also
received in 1984 four suits from Pincus Brothers - Maxwell which were
subsequently returned because they were too large. In 1985, Goode
received nine suits from Pincus Brother - Maxwell wherein Union records
indicate that the invoice was issued to Mr. DiPiero with an invoice
wholesale price of $978. However, Goode's recollection is that David
Pincus of Pincus Brothers - Maxwell advised him that the wholesale cost
,o f - t h er - - X225 : -- - re°�rn'ds — of� iyn�cus °Ert he s=ue .
indica that they received a letter from Velma Goode dated December
2, 1985 which referenced and enclosed check in the amount of $1,359
for payment of the suits excluding a $200 payment which was made to
Nick DiPiero. That letter further referenced a non - payment as to
certain suits which were indicated as not having been received.
In 1985 Goode received five suits from H. Freeman & Sons, Inc.
which issued invoices to DiPiero at a unit price of $150 or a total
price of $750. DiPiero purchased a Fidelity Bank money order in the
Mr. W. Wilson Goode
Page 11
amount of $300 payable to H. Freeman & Sons, Inc. Thereafter on
November 8, 1985 by personal check, Goode paid DiPiero $472 to
reimburse him for three of the five invoices. A second check to H.
Freeman in the amount of $300 to pay for the other two invoices
followed. Records of H. Freeman & Sons, Inc. reflect a letter from
Goode dated December 2, 1985 referencing an enclosed check in the
amount of $300 for payment of the two other invoices. In addition,
the letter makes reference to a payment of $472 to Nicholas DiPiero
for the three invoices. Finally, the letter contains a notation that
a three hundred dollar check was returned because of a cash payment
made by DiPiero on July of 1985.
The propriety of Goode's receipt of the suits already has been
considered by the City of Philadelphia Board of Ethics which on
November 21, 1985 advised Goode of the application of disclosure
requirements as to the receipt of the suits. By letter of December
31, 1985 Goode responded to the Board outlining the manner in which
the suits were received from the various manufacturers. He argued
that the receipt did not constitute a gift because the suits were
obtained with the understanding that he would be able to pay wholesale
price which was available to other customers of the respective
manufacturers. Goode acknowledged that he was remiss in pursuing the
matter as quickly as he should and that some of the invoices reflected
a price below wholesale which necessitated obtaining a correct price
so that the bills could be paid. As to the three suits received in
1983, Goode stated that the invoice reflected a total price of $150
for the three suits whereas the actual price was $331 which was paid
in December of 1985. As to the two suits received in 1984, the
invoice reflected a price of $100 for the suits which were actually
priced at $250 wholesale, the latter amount being paid in December of
1985. As to the fourteen suits which were received in 1985, Goode
paid $1750 which reflected the wholesale price of the suits.
Thereafter Goode requested an opinion from the Philadelphia Board as
to whether his filings of the Philadelphia Statement of Financial
Interests should be amended. Goode also requested an opinion from
the City solicitor regarding the suits; the solicitor responded that
the price would be fair market value and that the purchases fell
within the guideline.
The Philadelphia Board of Ethics responded on February 24, 1986
wherein they advised that the prices paid by Goode even though they
were wholesale would constitute fair market value. The Board
determined that it was not necessary to amend the 1983 filings because
they concluded that it was Goode's intention to pay for the suits from
his personal funds. As to the 1984 calendar year, the Board concluded
that such presented a close factual question because two of the suits
received in 1984 were not paid for until 1985. The Board thus opined
that because suits were received in 1983, but not invoiced or paid for
until 1984 and that two suits were received in 1984 which were not
invoiced and paid for by the end of 1984, a disclosure of these
Mr. W. Wilson Goode
Page 12
transactions would have been appropriate. Finally, the Board
concluded that disclosure was not "manifestly" required and in any
event the letter of December 31, 1985 from Goode was sufficient for
whatever disclosure might be appropriate or required.
The Statement of Financial Interests for Goode under the State
Ethics Act which are on file in the City Hall of Philadelphia reflect
the following: for 1982, his position as managing director of the
City of Philadelphia, the City of Philadelphia as a source of income
with no gifts reported; for 1983, his status as a candidate and as a
former employee with the City of Philadelphia as a source of income
and no gifts reported; for 1984, his position as incumbent mayor with
sources of income of Charen, Palitz and Rosenberg with no gifts
reported; for 1985, his position as incumbent mayor with the City of
Philadelphia as a source of income and no gifts reported and for 1986,
his position as mayor with sources of income as the City of
Philadelphia and no gifts reported but with an attachment which
outlined the circumstances as to the receipt of the mens suits.
It is noted that in the trial of Nicholas DiPiero who was charged
with unlawful conversion of Union funds, testimony reflected that
numerous elected and appointed officials in Philadelphia received
suits from the Union and that almost none of the officials who
received these suits from the Union paid for them out of their
personal funds. In addition, the Union's special account for the
payment of these suits contained no records or falsified records in
order to conceal personal use of the account. Finally, some suits
which were allegedly charged to the account were in fact never
received by the alleged recipients.
In applying the provisions of Sections 3(a) and 3(b) of the
Ethics Act to the instant matter, there is neither evidence to
indicate that any understanding existed between the receipt of the
suits and any official action nor any use of office to obtain a
financial gain other than compensation provided for by law.
Accordingly, based upon the foregoing, we find no violation of either
Section 3(a) or 3(b) of the Ethics Act.
However, as to Section 5 regarding the reporting requirements
for the Statement of Financial Interests under the Ethics Act, we find
a technical violation since the mens suits were received in a_.given
calendar year with payment not being made until the subsequent
calendar year. However, given the totality of the facts and
circumstances in this case and in particular the detailed disclosure
set forth in 1986 Statement of Financial Interests, we will take no
further action.
Mr. W. Wilson Goode
Page 13
IV. Conclusions of Law:
1. W. Wilson Goode as the Mayor of the City of Philadelphia is a
public official subject to the provisions of the Ethics Act.
2. W. Wilson Goode did not violate Sections 3(a) or 3(b) of the
Ethics Act regarding certain suits that he had received between the
years 1983 and 1985.
3. A technical violation of Section 5(b)(5) and 51 Pa. Code §5.12
occurred when W. Wilson Goode failed to list the receipt of his suits
on his 1983 through 1985 calendar year Statements of Financial
Interests.
In re: W. Wilson Goode
: File Docket: 86 -189 -C
. Date Decided: August 16, 1990
Date Mailed: August 24. 1990
ORDER No. 758
1. W. Wilson Goode as Mayor of the City of Philadelphia did
not violate Sections 3(a) or 3(b) of the Ethics Act
regarding certain suits that he had received between the
years 1983 and 1985.
2. A technical violation of Section 5(b)(5) and 51 Pa. Code
§5.12 occurred when W. Wilson Goode failed to list the
receipt of his suits on his 1983 through 1985 calendar year
Statements of Financial Interests.
3. Based upon the totality of the facts and circumstances of
this case and the disclosure made on the 1986 Statement of
Financial Interests, this Commission will take no further
action in this case.
!mil u'/
HELENA G.' HUGHES ,°'CHAIR
BY THE, COMMISSION,