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)