Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout85-014 WeaverMs. Katherine E. Weaver Box 1 Marienville, PA 16239 Dear Ms. Weaver: STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 July 26, 1985 OPINION OF THE COMMISSION 85 -014 Re: School Board Member, Store Owner, Transactions with School District This responds to your letter of June 4, 1985, wherein you requested the advice of the State Ethics Commission. I. Issue: Whether a school board member may supply goods to the school district in which she serves. II. Factual Basis for Determination: You indicate that you are currently a candidate for the Forest County Board of School Directors. You further indicate that you, along with your spouse, are purchasing a grocery store in Marienville, Pennsylvania. This establishment will provide usual grocery and related goods. The East Forest School currently does business with the establishment that you are intending to purchase. You ask, whether there will be any prohibition under the Ethics Act in continuing this business relationship in the event that you are elected to the Board of School Directors. III. Discussion: If elected as a member of the Board of School Directors, you would become a public official as that term is defined in the State Ethics Act. 65 P.S. §402; Coon, 79 -016. As such, your conduct must conform to the requirements thereof. Generally, the Ethics Act provides that: 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). Ms. Katherine E. Weaver July 26, 1985 Page 2 Additionally, the Act allows the Commission to address other areas of possible conflict. 65 P.S. §403(d). We have recently determined that within the above provisions of law, a public official may not accept any compensation to which he knows or otherwise should know he or she is not entitled. Huff, 84 -015; Domalakes, 85 -010. Our basis for this determination was founded on the intent of the Act which is primarily concerned with insuring that the financial interests of a public official are not in conflict with the public trust. 65 P.S. §401. Within these provisions of law, we have thus, determined that when a public official accepts compensation to which he or she by law is not entitled, the financial interests of said official are in conflict with the public trust. Applying these principles to the instant situation, we must look to the relevant provisions of the "Public School Code" for guidance in this matter. The Code provides that: All persons elected or appointed as school directors shall serve without pay except as hereinafter provided. 24 P.S. §3 -321. The Code also provides as follows: No school director shall, during the term or which he was elected or appointed, as a private person engage in any business transaction with the school district in which he is elected or appointed, be employed in any capacity by the school district in which he is elected or appointed, or receive from such school district any pay for services rendered to the district except as provided in this act: 24. P.S. §3 -324. The Code does not appear to contain any exception to the above provisions that is applicable in the instant situation. Ii you were an owner of the grocery store and that store provided services, goods or otherwise transacted business with the school district, you would be receiving financial gain in violation of the Code and which was not otherwise provided by law. As noted, the Commission has determined that the acceptance of compensation to which one was not entitled would be a violation of the State Ethics Act. See also, McCutcheon v. State Ethics Commission, 77 Commw. Ct. 529, 466 A.2d 283, (1982). The above restriction, of course, only pertains to business transactions between the grocery store and the school district or school board. There would be no prohibition under the Ethics Act upon any member, employee, or officer of the school district transacting private business with said store. Ms. Katherine E. Weaver July 26, 1985 Page 3 Additionally, we note that the above result is occasioned by the fact that you personally will be part owner of the business enterprise. We do not, herein, address the situation or result that would he occasioned if your spouse were the sole owner of this establishment. The further advice of the State Ethics Commission may be requested if hereafter necessary. IV. Conclusion: As a member of the Board of School Directors, you may not accept any compensation or payment from the district that is not provided for by law. The Public School Code specifically regulates the compensation to be paid to school directors and also restricts business transactions between the district and its directors. Acceptance of compensation not authorized by or contract to said provisions would be a violation of the State Ethics Act. Thus, under the Ethics Act you may not, as owner of this entity, transact business with the School District wherein you serve as a School Director. There would be no prohibition under the Ethics Act upon any member, employee, or officer of the school district transacting private business with said store. 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. JJC /sfb 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 'HER: RT B. CONNER Chairman