Loading...
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.