HomeMy WebLinkAbout83-002 CoyleWilliam F. Coyle, Esquire
Suite 1430 Landtitle Building
Philadelphia, PA 19110
Re: Opinion No. 82 -013
Dear Mr. Coyle:
I. Issue:
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120
February 28, 1983
OPINION OF THE COMMISSION
z
83 - 002
You have requested that we reconsider Opinion No. 82 -013 for the
following reasons and raising the following questions:
A. The Order found fire batallion chiefs to be within the definition of
"public employee ".
1. You question the reasoning behind this ruling and ask how a fire
batallion chief could realize personal financial gain through
inspection or regulation of fire department persons under his
supervision.
2. You also state we fail to specify which category of tasks within
the definition of "public employee" applies to fire batallion
chiefs.
B. You question the finding that fire deputy chiefs are within the definition
of "public employee" and state the Opinion fails to state which of the
itemized, categories applies to these persons.
C. As to fire lieutenants and captains you argue that their inclusion
within the definition of "public employee" is inconsistent with our
regulations in that we cite 51 Pa. Code (B) (I) (a) and (b) without
reference to 51 Pa. Code (A).
D. You argue that Fire Unit Commanders are a misnomer and do not exist.
II. Law to be Applied:
Regulations of the Commission state:
Any person may request within 15 days of service of the
opinion that the Commission reconsider its opinion. The
person requesting reconsideration should present a
detailed explanation setting forth the reasons why the
opinion requires reconsideration. 51 Pa. Code 2.15.
William Coyle
February 28, 1983
Page 2
III. Facts
You have had an opportunity to present facts, argument and testimony
before this Commission. See June 16, 1982 minutes and transcript; December
22, 1982 minutes and transcript; your letters of April 17 and June 11, 1982.
These suffice to allow us to address the question of whether or not we should
reconsider our Opinion.
` S
IV. Discussion: Generally granting rehearing is within the sound discretion
of the reviewing body and is generally granted to afford an opportunity to
adduce testimony or evidence not offered at the original proceeding, ecause it
was not available. Douglas v. WCAB, 32 Pa. Cmwlth. 156, 377.A.2d 13D0 (1977).
Rehearing should not be allowed solely for the purpose of strengthening a weak .
case or proof or for the purpose of hearing testimony which may be cumulative.
Pennsylvania Glass - Sand Corp v. WCAB, 46 Pa. Cmwlth. 377, 407 A.2d 76
(1979).
You generally question the legal basis and reasoning of our Order. You
assert that we have misunderstood the functions of the persons in question, in
general, and misconceive the "inspection" process, in particular. See
Opinion, page 9. .You do not suggest that you will offer evidence or testimony
which was unavailable previously. We would, if we were to reconsider, in our
estimation be merely receiving cumulative testimony and additional argument.
We are not disposed to attenuate these proceedings further to receive or hear
same.
V. Conclusion: The request for reconsideration is denied. The Opinion
previously issued stands and should be complied with within 30 days of this
Opinion.
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.
This letter is a public record and will be made available as such.
Finally, any person may request within 15 days of service of the opinion
that the Commission reconsider its opinion. The person requesting
reconsideration should present a detailed explanation setting forth the
reasons why the opinion requires reconsideration.
Q.1A,. b y c1t, a-014 11 00
c,,\1 veihtc5 - U S l
Ry the Commission,
•
Paul J. Smith,
Chairman