Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout79-054C WajertTO: RE: FACTS: STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120, OPINION October 17, 1979 The Honorable John M. Wajert Court of Common Pleas of Chester County Court House West Chester, PA 19380 Former Judge practicing before the Court with which he was associated On March 12, 1979, the Honorable John M. Wajert, Common Pleas Judge for Chester County, asked by letter: May a judge of a Court of Common Pleas, upon retirement or resignation, represent a client before that Court within the first year after such resignation? On May 11, 1979, the Commission replied in Wajert, opinion 1978 -5: ...[A] Common Pleas Judge is barred by Section 3(e) of the Act from representing any person before the Court with which he was associated for a period of one year following resignation or retirement. On May 29, 1979, Judge Wajert filed a Petition for Declaratory Judgment in Commonwealth Court. On October 1, the Commission withdrew the Wajert Opinion so that Judge Wajert and any other concerned parties would have an opportunity to adequately litigate the legal issues at the administrative level. On October 4, 1979, the Commission advised Judge Wajert, and Harris Goldich, Esquire, Counsel for the Pennsylvania Bar Association, that a Commission meeting was scheduled for October 17, 1979, and invited them to appear. 79 -054C John M. Wajert October 17, 1979 page 2 of 4 On October 17, Judge Wajert advised the Commission that, while he meant no disrespect to the Commission, he felt that appearing before the Commission would jeopardize his timeliness argument notwithstanding the letter of October 4, 1979. Harris Goldich, Esquire, appeared on October 17, 1979, before the Commission on behalf of the Pennsyl- vania Bar Association. DISCUSSION: The issue before the Commission is whether Act 170 prohibits Judge Wajert from representing any, person on any matter before the governmental body with which he has been associated for one year after he leaves that body. Section 3(e) of Act 170 provides as follows: No former official or public employee shall represent a person, with or without the com- pensation, on any matter before the governmental body with which he has been associated for one year after he leaves that body. A subsidiary issue is whether the term "governmental body" includes a Court of Common Pleas. The term "governmental body" is defined as follows in Section 2: Any department, authority, commission, committee, council, board, bureau, division, service, office, officer, administration, legislative body, or other establishment in the Executive, Legislative or Judicial Branch of the State or a political subdivision thereof. The term "Court" is not specifically enumerated in this definitional section, but is referred to in Section 6(d)(4) and in Section 10. Since the definition does not expressly state the term "Court," may the Commission construe "or other establishment in the...Judicial Branch of the State..." to include a Court of Common Pleas? The term "establishment" is normally used to refer to a place of business (words and phrases, "establishment as general term "), but it may be used to describe John M. Wajert October 17, 1979 page 3 of 4 municipal corporations such as library boards or districts. Datisman v. Gary, Public Library 170 NE2d 55, 58, 241 Ind. 83. The use of the term "or other" clearly indicates that the Legislature did not intend the series preceding "or other establishment" to be an exclusive list, but rather only to be examples of establishments "in the Executive, Legislative or Judicial Branch of the State or a political subdivision thereof." Courts are invested with the authority and responsibility of resolving conflicts with our laws. If Courts do not exist as a "governmental body," it would be difficult to imagine what is a governmental body. Thus, we hold that the term "governmental body" includes a Court of Common Pleas. The Attorney General advised the Governor upon passage of this Act that in his opinion all of its sections were constitutional. Therefore, we, as a creature of the statute, do not see our role as deciding whether a section is "per se" constitutional. However, the Commission does recognize its responsibility to construe any sections of the Act in accordance with the Pennsylvania and U.S. Constitutions. Absent unusual circumstances, it is the role of the Courts, not administrative agencies, to decide issues of consti- tutionality. The Commission considered at its planning session and public meeting the issues raised by Judge Wajert and the Pennsylvania Bar Association, but did not find them persuasive. Therefore, we reaffirm our decision of May 11, 1979, and hold that the Honorable John M. Wajert, Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County, may not practice before the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County within one year after he leaves that body. CONCLUSION: The Honorable John M. Wajert, Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County, may not practice before the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County within one year after he leaves that body. John M. Wajert October 17, 1979 page 4 of 4 Pursuant to Section 7(9)(i), this opinion is a complete defense in any enforcement proceeding initiated by the Commission, and evidence of good faith conduct in any other civil or criminal proceeding, providing the requestor has disclosed truthfully all the material facts and committed the acts complained of in reliance on the advice given. This letter is a public record and will be made available as such. /s/ Paul J. Smith PAUL J. SMITH Chairman (SEAL)