HomeMy WebLinkAbout82-012 WellingtonJohn S. Wellington, thief Counsel
Treasury Department
129 Finance Building
Harrisburg, PA 17120
II. Factual Basis for Determination:
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120
December 23, 1982
OPINION OF THE COMMISSION
82 -012
RE: Pennsylvania Mortgage Corporation; State Treasurer; Directorship
Dear Mr. Wellington:
I. Issue:
You request advice on behalf of the State Treasurer as to whether or not
the Ethics Act places any restrictions upon his proposed service as a director
of a corporation known as Pennsylvania Mortgage Corporation, hereinafter PMC.
The State Treasurer has been asked to serve as a director of a
corporation to be formed and to be known as PMC. This corporation, as
currently contemplated, would serve as a vehicle for providing a source of
mortgage funding for residential mortgages. The corporation would be composed
of a board of directors of 20 members, 18 of whom would consist of three
representatives from associations from the following groups: mutual savings
banks, commercial banks, savings and loan establishments, mortgage bankers,
realtors, and builders. The other two members of the board of directors of
PMC would be: (a) a representative satisfactory to the Governor and (b) the
State Treasurer. Shareholders in the coporation would be the six industry
groups. The directors would receive no salary or renumeration from the
corporation nor would they be shareholders of the coporation.
PMC would operate as a vehicle to utilize a mortgage- backed security
instrument for the purpose of providing mortgages from public pension funds
and institutional investors. This mortgage- backed security contemplated by
PMC would be a debt instrument collateralized by a pool of mortgages. PMC
would establish criteria for the mortgage - backed security and would then seek
so- called conduit companies such as MGIC (Mortgage Guarantee Insurance
Corporation), Verex (a subsidiary of Greyhound Corporation) and the like, who
would offer such mortgage- backed securities for investment by the public and
private institutional investors. PMC would then present the investment
opportunity to institutional investors, including the public pension and
retirement funds.
John S. Wellington, Chief Counsel
December 23, 1982
Page 2
In this venture there would be no actual contract between PMC and the
retirement funds and none of PMC's income would come from the retirement funds
or other institutional investors. Any income to PMC would be generated from
the fee income paid by or through the conduit companies (fees and service
charges, etc.) which would also be paid by the mortgagors whose individual
mortgages make up the pool which collateralizes the debt instrument or
security that would be utilized or issued by PMC.
The primary purpose of PMC is to increase investment by public pension
funds and institutional investors in residential mortgages. This endeavor
would benefit the economy in general on a state and national basis by
stimulating home building and sales and providing employment in these areas in
Pennsylvania. The pension funds to whom this proposal will be presented
include the State Employees Retirement Board, the Public School Employees
Retirement Board and the Pennsylvania Municipal Retirement Board hereinafter,
the Pension Retirement Funds or Pension Boards.
The State Treasurer is, by law, an ex officio member of the State
Employees Retirement Board. This Board consist of 11 members: the State
Treasurer, two Senators, two members of the House of Representatives, and six
members who are designated by the Governor. See 71 Pa. C.S.A. 5901.
Likewise, the State Treasurer, the Secretary of Education, and the Executive
Secretary of the Pennsylvania School Boards Association serve as ex officio
members of the Public School Employees Retirement Board. The remaining 12
members of this 15- member Board consist of two Senators and two members of the
House of Representatives, two members appointed by the Governor, three members
elected by the active professional members of the Retirement System from among
their membership, one member elected by the annuitants of the system from
their membership, one member elected by the active non - professional members of
the retirement system from among their membership, and one member elected to
represent the Public School Boards from among their membership. See 24 Pa.
C.S.A. 8501(a). As to the Pennsylvania Municipal Retirement Board, the State
Treasurer and the Secretary of the Commonwealth are ex officio members of this
Board. Eight other members of the Board are appointed by the Governor. See
53 P.S. 881.02. All formal action by these Retirement Boards, with respect to
investments, is taken at open and public meetings.
Notably, in the letter dated November 15, 1982, which solicited the
participation as a director by the State Treasurer, the person soliciting the
Treasurer's participation indicated that independent "pitches" had been made
by groups of realtors and others to the Retirement Funds to provide a
mortgage- backed security program and to enlist the support of such funds in
providing mortgage funding in Pennsylvania. This letter notes that such
individual efforts have met with little success. Consequently, the attempt
was made to develop the vehicle to be known as PMC in the hope that this
corporation would have greater success in utilizing the mortgage- backed
John S. Wellington, Chief Counsel
December 23, 1982
Page 3
security instruments as a vehicle for securing greater investment by the
Retirement Funds. This letter indicates that "we believe that this
corporation will have great success in utilizing a mortgage- backed security
instrument if we might have the wisdom and support of the State Treasurer's
Office" and solicits the consent of the Treasurer to serve on the board of
directors.
The information provided also indicates that this program is patterned
after the program of a similar nature established and operating in the State
of Colorado. In the Colorado program the State Treasurer is a member of the
analogous mortgage corporation's board of directors.
III. Applicable Law:
The law to be applied to this situation is as follows:
Section 1. Purpose.
The Legislature hereby declares that public office is a
public trust and that any effort to realize personal
financial gain through public office other than
compensation provided by law is a violation of that trust.
In order to strengthen the faith and confidence of the
people of the State in their government, the Legislature
further declares that the people have a right to be
assured that the financial interests of holders of or
candidates for public office present neither a conflict
nor the appearance of a conflict with the public trust.
Because public confidence in government can best be
sustained by assuring the people of the impartiality and
honesty of public officials, this act shall be liberally
construed to promote complete disclosure. 65 P.S. 401.
Section 3. Prohibited Activities.
(a) No public official or public employee shall use his
public office or any confidential information received
through his holding public office to obtain financial gain
other than compensation provided by law for himself, a
member of his immediate family, or a business with which
he is associated. 65 P.S. 403(a).
John S. Wellington, Chief Counsel
December 23, 1982
Page 4
V. Discussion:
(c) No public official or public employee or a member of
his immediate family or any business in which the person
or a member of the person's immediate family is a
director, officer, owner or holder of stock exceeding 5%
of the equity at fair market value of the business shall
enter into any contract valued at $500 or more with a
governmental body unless the contract has been awarded
through an open and public process, including prior public
notice and subsequent public disclosure of all proposals
considered and contracts awarded. Any contract made in
violation of this subsection shall be voidable by a court
of competent jurisdiction if the suit is commenced within
90 days of making of the contract. 65 P.S. 403(c).
Of course, the State Treasurer is a public official as defined in the
Ethics Act, and, accordingly, his conduct must conform to the requirements of
the Ethics Act. The requirements of the Ethics Act are sometimes unclear as
they may be applicable to a particular situation and the complexity of the
situation presented here will, hopefully, in this discussion, be reduced to
fairly basic concepts for purposes of comprehension.
In this discussion, we will assume that the State Employees Retirement
Board, the Public School Employees Retirement Board and the Pennsylvania
Municipal Retirement Board, hereinafter referred to collectively as the
Retirement Funds or Pension Funds, are legally authorized to make the type of
investment proposed by PMC. Likewise, we will assume that such an investment
is within the sound discretion of those Boards and would constitute a
competitive and appropriate investment opportunity for those Pension Funds.
In addition, we also recognize that the proposal of PMC is designed to gain
access to non - conventional sources of home loan money and to make that money
available to realtors, home - builders, and home - buyers in Pennsylvania to an
extent that such monies may not have been available without the intervention
of or the proposal of PMC. It is clear that such a proposal, if adopted by
any private or public investor would, in general, benefit home - building and
home - buying groups within the Commonwealth. This investment opportunity,
whether ultimately selected by private or public investors, if successful,
would have the salutory effect of addressing and meeting the urgent need for
conventional single - family mortgage funds in the Commonwealth and would spur
home - building and home - buying opportunities in Pennsylvania.
John S. Wellington, Chief Counsel
December 23, 1982
Page 5
Recognizing the salutory and generally beneficial results, however, we
must still address the question of the propriety of the State Teasurer
participating as a director of PMC. As expressed in Section 1 of the Ethics
Act the public has a right to be assured that the financial interests of an
office holder present neither a conflict nor an appearance of a conflict with
the public trust. Section 3(a) admonishes a public officer against using his
public office to secure financial gain for himself or a business with which he
is associated, in addition to the compensation provided to that official by
law. Notably, the definition of a "business with which he is associated"
includes a business on which the public official serves as a director. Thus,
we begin with the assumption that PMC would be a "business with which the
official (the Treasurer) would be associated" if the Treasurer were to accept
appointment as director on the board of this corporation. Likewise, the fact
that the Treasurer would be a director in PMC would implicate the provisions
of Section 3(c) of the Ethics Act to the extent that a contract between the
governmental body with which an official is associated and a business with
which he is associated could be made only after an open and public process as
required by this provision of the Ethics Act. The State Treasurer is deemed
to be associated with the Pennsylvania Funds by virtue of this ex officio
membership on these Boards. See Geesey, 80 -057 and Seltzer, 80 -044.
Addressing this last consideration first, you have indicated that there
would be no contract between PMC and any of the Pension Funds. Therefore,
upon this representation, there would be no requirement under the Ethics A(;t, .
that an open and public process be undertaken by PMC in relation to these
Pension Funds. We next consider whether there is any actual or potential
financial gain that would be prohibited by Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act in
this proposed transaction. Given the fact that the Treasurer will not be
compensated as a director of PMC and that he will not participate in any of
the profits of PMC as a shareholder or otherwise, the potential from
acquisition for personal financial gain for the use of the office of Treasurer
or as ex officio member of these Boards is not sufficiently apparent warrant
to barring his acceptance of the position as director in PMC. Accordingly, we
conclude that there is no per se prohibition under Section 3(a) against
accepting this position in PMC.
However, in light of Section 1 of the Ethics Act and in order to assure
the public that the Treasurer's personal financial interests do not create
even an appearance of a conflict with the public trust which he is to serve as
a member of these Pension Boards, we must review the question of whether the
Treasurer's mere participation in PMC as a director may be inappropriate. It
is clear that the invitation to become a director in PMC is an attempt to
secure for PMC the support of the office of the State Treasurer so that with
John S. Wellington, Chief Counsel
December 23, 1982
Page 6
this support, PMC would be better able to secure investment committments from
the public Pension Boards upon which the Treasurer serves. As such, the power
and prestige of the Treasurer's Office would be used by the private
corporation, PMC, to sway the decision of a public Pension Board(s). This
usurpation of the power and prestige of the Office of the State Treasurer
should not be permitted and the Treasurer would be best advised to decline to
participate in anything that appears to have this purpose or result.
We make this decision mindful of the pressing need for mortgage funds
that PMC's proposal might meet and the beneficial effect such a proposal, if
fully funded, might have on Pennsylvania's home - building and home - buying
populations. We make this decision mindful also, however, of the high -level
nature of the Office of the State Treasurer and the clearly commercial and
profit- making nature of the corporation and proposals with which he would be
associated. We are convinced that if the proposals of PMC are so obviously
meritorious they can succeed without the benefit of or use of the weight and
prestige of the Office of the State Treasurer. Thus, the Commonwealth may
still reap the social and economic benefits of this program without using or
sacrificing the prestige of such an important office and officer to secure
funding for this project.
V. Conclusion:
Given the facts as presented, Section 3(c) of the Ethics Act is not
applicable and does not require that the proposals of PMC made to the Pension
Funds meet the open and public process requirements contained in that Section
of the Ethics Act. Likewise, there is no per se prohibition under the Ethics
Act against accepting the offered directorship in PMC. However, lending the
power and prestige of the Office of State Treasurer to PMC's endeavors to
secure public Pension Fund(s) monies for PMC's projects would give rise to an
appearance that the Treasurer's interests and the public's interests which he
is to serve on the Pension Boards conflict. The Treasurer would be best
advised to refrain from lending the power and prestige of his office to this
private, profit- making corporation and to decline to serve PMC as a director.
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 civil or criminal proceeding, providing the requestor has
disclosed truthfully all the material facts and committed the acts complained
of in reliance of the advice given.
John S. Wellington, Chief Counsel
December 23, 1982
Page 7
Finally, any person may request within 15 days of service of the opinion that
the Commission reconsider its opinion. The person requesting reconside-
ration should present a detailed explanation setting forth the reasons why the
opinion requires reconsideration.
SSC /rdp
This letter is a public record and will be made available as such.
cc: Budd R. Dwyer,
State Treasurer
By the Commission,
PAUL J.USMITH
Chairman