Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout742-R ScanlonDear Mr. Scanlon: Mr. James E. Scanlon c/o Eugene F. Scanlon, Esquire Cauley & Conflenti 1212 Manor Complex 564 Forbes Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219 STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 RECONSIDERATION ORDER OF THE COMMISSION Order No. 742 -R Before: Helena G. Hughes, Chair Robert W. Brown, Vice Chair G. Sieber Pancoast Dennis C. Harrington James M. Howley Date Decided: March 29, 1990 Date Mailed: March 30, 1990 Re: File No. 87- 099 -C, Order No. 742 This refers to the request for Reconsideration presented on March 9, 1990, with respect to the above - captioned Order issued on March 6, 1990 pursuant to 51 Pa. Code 2.38. The discretion of the State Ethics Commission to grant reconsideration is properly invoked, pursuant to our regulations, 51 Pa. Code 2.38(b) when: (b) Any party may ask the Commission to reconsider an Order within 15 days of service of the Order. The person requesting reconsideration should present a detailed explanation setting forth the reason why the Order should be reconsidered. Reconsideration may be granted at the discretion of the Commission only where any of the following occur: (1) a material error of law has been made; (2) a material error of facts has been made; (3) new facts or evidence are provided which would lead to reversal or modification of the order and where these could not be or were not discovered previously by the exercise of due diligence. Page 2 The Commission, having reviewed your request, must DENY your;c request because none of these circumstances are present. _ euest The sole basis for your reconsideration request concerns E Finding 22 -c which you argue was not in the Investigativeg Complaint. Because that portion of the finding was not in:theL complaint, you assert that you have been denied the right to, respond to that sub - finding. Although it is true that the Investigative Complaint ended }, at paragraph 22 -b, your argument ignores the obvious that yours. Answer and request for a hearing, which was held, generated ~;a record that resulted in additional fact findings, from those you admitted. You were not denied the opportunity to respond to the Complaint because you filed an Answer thereto. In addition, this Commission held a hearing of which you had notice and opportunity to respond. You appeared at the hearing at which testimony was taken and documentary evidence was received into the record. Finding 22 -c of Order 742 resulted from that hearing. Your request for reconsideration has no merit. In light of the foregoing, the State Ethics Commission concludes that your request for reconsideration must be DENIED. That Order and this decision denying reconsideration are final and shall be made available as public documents on the fifth (5th) business day following the date of this Order. By th= Commissio „/ t elena G. Hughes Chair Robert W. Brown did not participate in this matter becauser acted as single presiding officer and recused himself pursuantsto 51 Pa. Code 52.34(d). 51 Dennis C. Harrington did not participate in this matter.