Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout84-003 BlaneyFred B. Blaney c/o William K. Eckel, Esquire Suite 600 United States National Bank Bldg. Johnstown, Pennsylvania 15901 II. Factual Basis for Determination: III. Applicable Law: STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 OPINION OF THE COMMISSION February 24, 1984 RE: School Director, Participation, Spouse Dear Mr. Blaney: I. Issue: 84 -003 You present the question of whether you face any restrictions as a School Director and Teacher with respect to voting on certain contracts or items to be presented to the School District in which you serve. You indicate that you are an elected School Director in the Armstrong School District, hereinafter ASD, and took office in December, 1983. You also serve as a teacher in the Lenape Vocational Technical School, hereinafter LVTS. The LVTS, we will assume, is comprised of and serves school districts within the area, including ASD. As such, we will also assume as a matter of fact, that the ASD Board of Directors will, on occasion, be asked to address and rule upon questions vital to and effecting the LVTS. Finally, you indicate that your wife is also a teacher serving in the ASD. You indicate that your understanding is that you cannot vote on the teacher's contract at the LVTS or on any contract with a business with which you might be associated. The law to be applied in this question 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 Fred B. Blaney February 24, 1984 Page 2 IV. Di scussion: 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 2. Definitions. "Immediate family." A spouse residing in the person's household and minor dependent children. 65 P.S. 402. Section 3. Restricted 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). Obviously, you are, as a recently elected member of the School Board in ASD, a "public official" as that term is defined in the State Ethics Act. As such, your conduct as a public official must conform to the requirements of the State Ethics Act. However, in reviewing your request and rendering advice, we must initially note that the jurisdiction of this Commission is strictly limited to the provisions of the Ethics Act and any interpretation, opinion, or ruling rendered is provided only pursuant to the terms of the State Ethics Act and interprets only that Act. Any opinion, ruling, etc., should not be viewed as providing an interpretation of or "clearance" to act under any statute, rule, regulation, or other requirement than those expressed within the Ethics Act itself. Under the provisions of the Ethics Act, a public official may not use his public office to secure financial gain other than compensation allowed by law, for himself, a member of his immediate family, or a business with which he is associated. In the facts as you present them, your spouse, a teacher in the ASD, is to be considered within your "immediate family" as the term "immediate family" is defined in the Ethics Act. However, the question then becomes whether in discussing or voting on the adoption of the collective bargaining agreement or in participating in decisions regarding teacher negotiations involving the union which might represent your wife as a teacher within ASD, you would be utilizing your public office to secure financial gain as prohibited under Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act. We have recently reviewed Fred B. Blaney February 24, 1984 Page 3 this matter in the context of a similar request for an opinion. See Krier issued February 24, 1984. In this ruling, we stated that abstention would be mandated under Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act only where the spouse of a school board director or the school board director himself would be individually and specifically benefitted to an extent different or unique from those benefits which would accrue to other similarly situated members of the bargaining unit. In the present case you have presented no facts which would indicate either you as a teacher within LVTS or your spouse as a teacher within ASD would be directly and individually impacted or affected to a degree different from those benefits which would accrue to other members within the bargaining unit As such, as we stated in Krier, Section 3(a) would not mandate that you could not vote on the ratification or adoption of the collective bargaining agreement that would effect your wife as a teacher within ASD or yourself as a teacher within LVTS. Of course, in any such action, you would violate the State Ethics Act if you were to use or provide confidential information acquired as a School Board Director or allow such information to be used to your or your spouse's benefit, as set forth in Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act. No such information which you acquire as a School Board Director should be transmitted to or utilized to your benefit or that of your spouse in the context of the collective bargaining agreement negotiations or otherwise. However, even if no violation of Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act would be apparent if you were to vote on the final adoption of the collective bargaining agreement as to LVTS or the ASD, we must, as we stated in Krier, review this question in light of Section 1 of the Ethics Act. In this process we must again balance the goal of the duty of the School Director to perform the obligations of his office, including dealing with the Union, against the requirements that your conduct must present neither a conflict nor an appearance of a conflict with the public trust. We rule here as we did in Krier, that in order to assure the public that your financial interests are sufficiently separated from your responsibilities to the public, that you, as a School Director, should not participate in the negotiation process, discussions, or meetings regarding the collective bargaining agreements with respect to ASD or LVTS. In this way, your influence in the School District's decisions and those of LVTS as to the direction and outcome of the negotiation process can be eliminated and the possibility of the use or transmission of the confidential information may be minimized if not eliminated. However, when the final agreements are presented for adoption and ratification and those agreements affect yourself and your spouse in the same manner or degree as other members of the bargaining unit, you may participate in the final vote as to ratification or adoption of those agreements. Fred B. Blaney February 24, 1984 Page 4 V. Conclusion: Under the circumstances as set forth above, Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act would not prohibit you from participating in the final vote on the adoption or ratification of the collective bargaining agreement with respect to ASO or the LVTS. Cautions with respect to confidential information which are expressed in this Opinion must be observed. However, in order to meet the purpose of the Ethics Act as expressed in Section 1 of the Ethics Act and to minimize or eliminate the problems of use of confidential information for Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act. You should refrain from participating in negotiations, discussions, and meetings regarding these collective bargaining agreements although, as set forth above, you may vote on the final adoption or ratification of same where: SSC /rdp 1. You properly refrain from participating in meetings, negotiations, and discussions as set forth above; and 2. the final agreement to be voted upon affects you and your spouse, as teachers, no more than any other members of the bargaining unit. 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 reconside- ration should present a detailed explanation setting forth the reasons why the opinion requires reconsideration. By the Commission ,