HomeMy WebLinkAbout79-070 StewartTO:
DISCUSSION:
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA t7120
OPINION OF THE COMMISSION
November 7, 1979
Richard W. Stewart, Esquire
Stone, Sajer & Stewart
310 Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
RE: Various business interests of school board
directors
FACTS:
79 -070
On October 11, 1979, Richard W. Stewart, Solicitor
for the West Shore School District of Cumberland County,
requested advisory opinions on behalf of school directors.
He advised that the school board has on occasion had
difficulty mustering the requisite majority to approve
payment of bills because a number of directors feel
they must abstain from voting due to Act 170.
These fact situations are as follows: (1) Mr.
Daniel H. Thomas is an executive, employed by Pennsylvania
Blue Shield. He abstains from voting for the payment of
routine bills. He also abstains from voting to enter
into collective bargaining agreements between
school district and its unionized employees because of
clue Cross and Blue Shield coverage. (2) Mr. Heinz, a
branch manager of the IBM Corporation, also abstains
from voting on the approval of IBM bills. (3) Mr.
Masoner, an area manager for Bell Telephone Company of
Pennsylvania, abstains from voting for the approval of
payment of telephone bills.
Messrs. Thomas, Heinz and Masoner wish to know
whether Act 170 requires their abstention from these
matters.
The issue is whether an
such as Bell Telephone, IBM,
under contract with a school
payment of routine bills not
employee of a company,
and Blue Cross /Blue Shield,
board may vote on the
in dispute.
Richard W. Stewart
November 7, 1979
page 2 of 2
Section 1 of Act 170 requires that public officials
"present neither a conflict nor the appearance of a
conflict with the public trust."
Under the facts, the question is limited to
whether they must abstain from voting on uncontested
bill payments, and not contested bill payments.
Under the common law, school directors should
avoid participating in any discussion in which they
have a direct personal interest. Reckner vs. School
District of German Township, 341 Pa. 375. However,
routine payment of bills not in dispute, and which are
obligated under contract, requires no such limitation.
CONCLUSION:
Messrs. Thomas, Heinz and Masoner are not prohibited
by Act 170 from voting for the payment of routine bills
submitted by their employers, where payment is required
by contract and where no dispute exists with regard to
such payment.
To avoid the appearance of a conflict, Mr. Thomas
should refrain from participating in those aspects of a
collective bargaining agreement which involve a dispute
relative to Blue Cross and Blue Shield coverage. He is
not barred from voting to enter into collective bar-
gaining agreements because the bargaining agreement
provides employees with Blue Cross /Blue Shield coverage.
In the event the school district contracts with
any of the employers of the school directors for goods
or services valued at $500 or more, a contract must be
awarded through an open and public process as specified.
in Section 3(c).
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.