HomeMy WebLinkAbout85-026 ConnerHerbert R. Conner, Esquire
Dickie, McCamey and Chilcote
Two PPG Place
Pittsburgh, PA 15 ?22
I. Issues:.
II. Factual Basis for Determination:
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120
December 24, 1985
OPINION OF THE COMMISSION
85 -026
Re: Public Official, Owner, Business, Contracting with Governmental Bodies
Dear Mr. Conner:
This responds to your request for the opinion of the State Ethics
Commission.
A. Whether a company owned by a member of the State Ethics Commission
may negotiate a contract with local school districts.
R. Whether this company may enter into a contract with a private
advertising firm that has also been retained by another state agency.
C. Whether a business in which a member of the State Ethics Commission
is a partner, may lease office space in a building owned hy the business to
a state agency.
You currently serve as the Chairman of the State Ethics Commission. The
State Ethics Commission is an independent state agency that was created hy Act
of General Assembly, 65 P.S. 6401 et. seq. The Commission is generally
responsible for issuing advices and opinions to puhlic officials and public
employees in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania regarding their duties and
responsibilities under the State Ethics Act. In addition, the Commission has
the power to investigate allegations of violations of the State Ethics Act
committed hy public employees and public officials. The Commission's
jurisdiction is state -wide in nature and includes responsibility for all
public officials and puhlic employees on hoth the local and state levels. You
have served on the Commission since January 13, 19R3, and you have heen
Chairman of the Commission since May 15, 19R4.
Herbert B. Conner, Esquire December 24, 1985
Page 2
In addition to your position with the State Ethics Commission, you are
also a practicing attorney in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as well as an
independent businessman. You indicate that you have recently purchased an
interest in the Yellow Cab Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. You indicate
that you are a 90 percent owner of that company. The cab company has
traditionally transacted business with various school districts in the
Pittsburgh area and had obtained contracts with such districts prior to your
ownership. You further advise that these contracts are generated by employees
of the cab company who solicit business from the area school districts.
Generally the contracts are negotiated by employees of the cab company. As an
owner and officer of the cab company, you may be called upon to give formal
approval to contracts that are negotiated by company employees and officials.
You personally do not negotiate any of the contracts involved. You do not
meet with district officials and generally, prior to approval, you are not
aware of the specific districts with which the company is negotiating.
In addition to the foregoing, you have also indicated that the Yellow Cab
Company has traditionally employed its cabs for advertisement purposes.
Generally, a company will advertise by way of signs which are placed on the
cab roofs. The company has recently ended such an advertisement contract with
a cigarette company and the cab company has received inqui ries from an
advertising agency as to the availability of the advertising space. This
advertising company currently has a contract with the Pennsylvania Department
of Revenue, Bureau of State Lottery. This advertising company seeks to
advertise the Pennsylvania State Lottery on the roofs of cabs owned by your
company. As part of this situation, you advise that the Yellow Cab Company of
Pittsburgh is the only major cab company operating in Pittsburgh. You have
also informed us that you will personally not be negotiating this contract.
The Yellow Cab Company has a staff of employees and officers who will be
arranging the terms of the contract. You have noted that the officials of the
advertising company do wish to meet you as owner of the cab company. Your
approval will be necessary on the final contractual arrangements. Neither you
nor Yellow Cab Company will be directly transacting any business with the
Pennsylvania Department of Revenue. Additionally, you are not personally
involved with the advertising company. All of the arrangements are being
transacted through the cab company employees and consultants.
You also serve as the managing partner of the FAMCO Partnership,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. This Partnership owns the Manor Building, 564
Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. In May of 1983, the Pennsylvania
Department of General Services, pursuant to state law, advertised in local
Pittsburgh publications a request for proposals regarding the lease of 12,000
square feet of office space in downtown Pittsburgh. This advertisement was in
relation to office space being sought by the office of the Pennsylvania
Attorney General. FAMCO responded to this request for proposal through its
real estate management company, John W. Galbreath, Inc. You indicate that
this company responded to the advertisement and further handled all of the
negotiations with the Pennsylvania Department of General Services. Proposals
Herbert B. Conner, Esquire December 24, 1985
Page 3
were received from 5 prospective lessors and on July 20, 1983, the contract
was awarded to FAMCO. The contract requi red FAMCO to supply 12,202 square
feet at the rate of 512 per square foot per year for the term of 5 years.
Generally, a lessor is selected upon the lowest rate. The lowest rate,
however, is not the sole factor considered when awarding such a contract.
Other factors taken into consideration would include the inclusion of parking
facilities, janitorial services, and other maintenance services. You have
noted your belief that your hid was successful in relationship to this real
estate contract because it was the lowest hid with on -site parking and the
space was within one block of the Allegheny County Court Complex. Once the
Bureau of Real Estate makes a potential selection, the requesting agency is
notified, in this case the Office of Attorney General. The agency then
completes appropriate forms and returns these forms to the Bureau of Real
Estate. Once approved, the forms are forwarded to the Governor's Office of
Budget for approval and a lease is prepared. The lease is then reviewed by
the Department of General Services, legal counsel, the lessor and the office
of the agency requesting the space. If the lease is in accordance with all
applicable laws, it is then referred to the Board of Public Grounds and
Buildings. That board consists of the Governor, the State Treasurer, and the
Auditor General or their designees. 71 P.S. 6156. The board is responsible
for giving final approval to the lease. This process was followed in the
current situation. You have finally indicated that the lease was amended in
July of 1984 to allow the Office of Attorney General to provide for certain
renovations to the leased space. The FAMCO lease was further amended in
September, 1985 as additional space was needed. You signed the lease as
managing partner of FAMCO. Your interests in FAMCO and Yellow Cab Company do
appear on your Statements of Financial Interests.
You now seek the opinion of the Commission as to whether there are any
prohibitions upon the activities of your corporation in light of the fact that
you are a member of the State Ethics Commission.
III. Discussion:
As Chairman of the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission, there is no
doubt that you are a pubic official and, therefore, subject to the terms of
the State Ethics Act. 65 P.S. MO1 et. seq.
In relation to your request, several provisions of the Act must be
considered.
Initially, the Act provides that:
Herbert R. Conner, Esquire
Page 4
December 24, 1985
Section 3. Restricted activities.
(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 puhlic
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).
The Ethics Commission has historically interpreted this provision of the law
to require an open and public process in the award of all contracts between a
public official and the governmental body with which he is associated. Bryan,
80 -014; Lynch, 79 -047. The governmental body with which you are associated is
the State Ethics Commission and, therefore, the open and public process
requirements of Section 3(c) of the Ethics Act would apply if and when Yellow
Cab Company or FAMCO would seek to contract with the State Ethics Commission
in excess of $500 or more. The Commission has similarly held throughout its
history, that a public official may under the Ethics Act contract with any
governmental body other than the one with which he is associated without
undertaking the open and public process requirements of Section 3(c) of the
Ethics Act. In, the current situation, neither you nor your company are
contemplating contracting with the State Ethics Commission. In the first
situation, Yellow Cab Company will he contracting with local school districts
for transportation services. You, as Chairman of the Ethics Commission, have
no responsibility, authority, or control over these school districts. You are
not associated with these districts and, therefore, Section 3(c) of the Act
would not be applicable in this situation. Additionally, in the second
situation, neither you nor your company are contemplating contracting with any
governmental body. The contract that will be negotiated is between your
company and a private advertising firm. That firm had al ready acquired the
State Revenue contract and you had no role in that process. As such, there
would be no 3(c) prohibition upon this contracting possibility. Finally, in
the last situation, your company once again is not contracting with the State
Ethics Commission. Even if Section 3(c) had applied, however, the open and
public process requirements were clearly met.
In addition to the foregoing the State Ethics Act provides other
restrictions upon members and employees of the State Ethics Commission.
Specifically, in relation to the instant matter, the Ethics Act provides
that no member of the Commission shall:
Herbert R. Conner, Esqui re December 24, 1935
Page 5
(4) directly or indirectly attempt to influence
any decision by a governmental body, other than a
court of law or as a representative of the
commission on a matter within the jurisdiction of
the commission; 65 P.S. E406(d)(4)
Of particular interest here is the issue as to whether your company's attempt
to negotiate a contract as set forth above would he an attempt to influence a
decision by a governmental body. You specifically ask this question in
relation to the three previously outlined factual situations. The local
school districts and state agencies involved are clearly "governmental bodies"
within the above prohibition as such term is defined in the State Ethics Act.
65 P.S. 6402. The key to the instant analysis, therefore, depends upon the
interpretation of the word influence and whether the negotiation of the
contract in question is an attempt to influence such hodies.
To date, there has been no interpretation of this provision and there is
a paucity of guidance in relation thereto.
Generally, the word influence has been defined in various ways. Several
courts have held that influence refers to power exerted over others. State v.
Community Distributors, 123 N.J. supra. 58, 304 A.2d 213, (1973). Included in
this particular definitional concept is any effort to "affect," modify, or act
upon a matter or person by physical , mental or moral power especially in some
subtle or gradual way. State v. Robertson, 241 La. 249; 128 So.2d 646,
(1961). In Pennsylvania the word influence has been defined as something
violative of a legal duty; "the word influence does not refer to any and every
line of conduct capable of disposing in one's favor, a fully and self
di recting mi nd, but to a control acqui red over another which vi rtual ly
destroys his free agency."
For the purpose of construing the Ethics Act, we are required to define
words and phrases according to their common and approved usage. 1 Pa. C.S.A.
1903(a); Kury v. State Ethics Commission, 62 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 174, 435
A.2d 940, (1981). The plain words of a statute cannot be disregarded where
language is free and clear from all ambiguity. Erie - Western Pennsylvania
Port Authority v. Rugare, 29 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 83, 370 A.2d 768, 1977.
The apparent intent of the State Ethics Act was to restrict members and
employees of the Commission from representing private interests before other
governmental bodies and personally attempting to influence those governmental
bodies in relation to such interests. This type of representation would, for
example, include advocating before such governmental bodies. This
construction, of course, results in a limitation of certain private rights and
interests of Commission members and employees. This rationale, however, is in
accord with one of the stated presumptions in determining legislative intent,
i.e., that the General Assembly intends to favor the public interest as
Herbert R. Conner, Fsqui re December 24, 1985
Page 6
against any private interest. 1. Pa. C.S.A. b1922. Our analysis of this
provision of law, however, leads us to conclude that the above restriction
would not prevent a member or empl oyee of the Commission from maki ng
appropriate applications to or seeking the services of other governmental
bodies. For example, it cannot he presumed that if a member of the Commission
owned a business that required the issuance of a license, that the law would
absolutely prohibit that business from making application therefor and from
having his interest represented before the issuing agency if necessary. Such
a Commission member, however, would be limited in the role that they
personally may play in relation thereto. Similarly, we do not believe that
this provision of law was intended to prohibit a business owned by a
Commission member from negotiating and executing contracts with other
governmental bodies. In the instant situation, it is clear that you have not
and will not personally be negotiating the contracts with the governmental
bodies involved. This will be done by the officers or employees of the cab
company and the real estate partnership. Additionally, with relation to the
state lottery advertisements, you will not be negotiating or representing your
company before the Department of Revenue or any Division therein. The only
role that you will play in relation to these situations, is that you will he
the final authority approving such contracts on behalf of your company after
the contracts are negotiated. In light of this situation, we do not believe
that you would be attempting to influence any governmental body. You have not
and will not make any overt attempt to influence any decision by a
governmental body or any official thereof. You have made no personal contact
and have not otherwise participated in the matters. We do note, as you have
indicated in your request, that the officials of the advertising company have
wished to meet with you personally prior to the negotiation of the contract.
You, however, will not be meeting or dealing with any official of the
Department of Revenue or any other governmental body and you have played no
role in the award of that contract to this advertising agency. Finally, we
note that the appearance of your name as signator on a contract with a
governmental body which has already been negotiated by someone else, would not
constitute an attempt to influence that body. As such, and based upon the
factors present herein, we do not perceive any attempt, either directly or
indirectly, to influence any goverrmental body. Thus, we do not believe that
there has or would be any violation of the State Ethics Act under the
foregoing factual situations.
In accordance with the Commission's authority to address other areas of
possible conflict, 65 P.S. b403(d), the Commission believes that your
abstention in certain matters in the future, should they arise, would be
advisable. Such abstention is a cautionary procedure, that we believe is
necessary in order to alleviate any misperceptions regarding your future
conduct as a public official.
Thus, if you are called upon as a member of the State Ethics Commission
to participate in a matter involving any official from a school district with
which the Yellow Cab Company of Pittsburgh has negotiated or has been awarded
a contract, you should abstain form such participation.
Herbert R. Conner, Esquire
Page 7
December 24, 1985
Similarly, if you are called upon to participate, as a member of the
State Ethics Commission, in a matter regarding any official or employee of the
Pennsylvania Department of Revenue, who was involved in the award of the State
Lottery contract to the advertising firm with which the Yellow Cab Company is
contracting, you should abstain form participating therein.
Finally, if you are called upon as a member of the State Ethics
Commission, to participate in a matter regarding any official of the
Department of General Services, the Office of Attorney General , the Board of
Public Grounds and Buildings or of any other state agency, who was involved in
the award of the lease to FAPICO, you should abstain from participation
therein.
IV. Conclusion:
As a member and Chairman of the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission you
are a public official and must conform your activities to the requirements of
the State Ethics Act.
1. Section 3(c) of the Ethics Act places no prohibition or restrictions
upon a company of which you are principal owner and a partnership in which you
are involved from entering into contracts with governmental bodies other than
the State Ethics Commission.
2. There was and would be no violation of the State Ethics Act, Section
406(d)(4), when a company of which you are principal owner negotiates and
enters into a contract with local school districts where you have played no
role in either the negotiation or award of such contract.
3. There was and would be no violation of the State Ethics Act, Section
406(d)(4), when a company of which you are principal owner negotiates a
contract with a private advertising firm that has a contract with a state
agency, where you played no role in either the negotiation or award of such
contracts and where your company's contract will not be with any state
agency.
4. There was and would he no violation of the State Ethics Act, Section
406(d) (4), when a partnership of which you are a member enters into a lease
agreement with a state agency, where you played no role in the negotiation or
approval of such lease and the lease was offered and obtained through an open
and public process.
5. The Ethics Act would not prohibit a business with which a member of
the Commission is associated from negotiating or entering into a contract with
governmental bodies, other than the Commission, as long as the Commissioner
plays no role in the negotiation of said contract and otherwise does not
attempt to directly or indirectly influence the decision by said governmental
body.
H erhert R. Conner, Esquire
Page
December 24, 1985
6. As a member of the State Ethics Commission you should abstain in the
future from participating in any matter involving:
a. Any official of a school district with which your company has
negotiated or has received a contract award.
b. Any official of the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue, who was
involved in the award of the Bureau of State Lottery advertising contract to
the advertising agency that proposes to contract with the Yellow Cah Company.
c. Any official of the Department of General Services, Office of
Attorney General , Board of Public Grounds and Buildings or of any other State
Agency, who was involved in the review and approval of the lease agreement
with your partnership.
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.
JJC /rdp
By the Commission,
DR. LEON L. HALEY
Vice - Chairman
Chairman Coryrfer di'1 not participate in the consideration or disposition of
this matter'.
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120
CONCURRING AND DISSENTING
OPINION OF COMMISSIONER PAUL d. SMITH
I did not join in the conclusion as to Section 3(a) because the motion
failed to restrict Commissioner Conner's participation in future cases
involving officials and employees in Agencies and Departments with whom he
holds leases, or is involved in other husiness activities.
The Ethics Act provides that:
Section 1. Purpose.
The Legislature hereby declares that public office is a
puhlic trust and that any effort to realize personal
financial gain through puhlic 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 he
assured that the financial interests of holders of or
candidates for puhlic office present neither a conflict
nor the appearance of a conflict with the puhlic trust.
Because puhlic confidence in government can hest he
sustained by assuring the people of the impartiality and
honesty of puhlic officials, this act shall he liberally
construed to promote complete disclosure. 65 P.S. 401.
This Commission, on a number of occasions in the past, has ruled that
within this section of the Act, members of governmental bodies may not
participate in any matter that may lead to the conclusion that their financial
interests are in conflict with the puhlic trust or appear to be in conflict
with the public trust. See Greenblatt, 79 -009; Matson, No. 220; Miller,
83 -006. Wellington, 82 -012. In the Miller cased -006, involving memhers of
the State Board of Real Estate, the Commission ordered them to discontinue
certain practices following a discussion led by Chairman Conner on the basis
that certain of their activities created an appearance of a conflict under
Section 1 of the Act. In view of the widespread financial activities engaged
in by Chairman Conner with governmental agencies it may he appropriate for him
to recuse himself in all cases where Section 1 of the Act is at issue.
Government employees suhject to the Act have a right to expect that, as a
minimum standard, no Commissioner sitting in judgment of them, should he out
of compliance with any provision of the same law they are administering.
In applying Section 1 of the Act, a Commissioner, above all, must he
constantly aware of puhlic perceptions'and must insure that his activities do
not even indirectly create the appearance of a conflict with the puhlic trust.
Therefore, I believe that Mr. Conner should not participate in any matter that
comes before the State Ethics Commission involving any employee or official of
a governmental hody with whom his private enterprises are contracting or
entities involved in the approval of leases or contracts.
Paul J. Smith Dissent December 24, 1985
Page 2
Mr. Conner, therefore, should abstain in any matter involving any
employee or official of the following governmental holips:
The Department of Revenue;
The Office of Attorney General;
The Auditor General's Office;
The Department of Environmental Resources;
The Department of General Services;
The Pennsylvania Board of Public_ Grounds & Buildings;
The Treasury Department;
The Governor's office; and
The Puhlic Utility Commission
It has heen clearly estahlished that Commmissioner Conner ohtained a
- 17of,COO lease from the Commonwealth for an organization known as FAMCO, of
which he is the managing partner, to provide office space for the Attorney
General's Office in Pittshurgh. This lease was awarded and twice amended
while Mr. Conner was a member of. the State Ethics Commission. The Ethics Act
lists hoth the Attorney General and the State Treasurer as associates in
enforcing and administering the Ethics Act. This relationship with the
Attorney General's Office is on a regular daily hasis. He controls the
prosecutorial function of the Ethics Act. In addition, he must also approve
all state leases outside the main Capitol area. The potential here for an
"appearance of a conflict with the puhlic trust" is so great that Commissioner
Conner should recuse himself in any and all cases involving the Attorney
General's Office and any of his employees. When an employee of the Attorney
General's Office receives an opinion from the State Ethics Commission, would
the puhlic perception not he that the financial husiness relationship that
exists hetween the Attorney General as tenant and the Chairman of the Ethics
Commission as landlord could have affected the outcome of the ruling? Would
the employee have a basis for an appeal on these grounds? I think so.
The relationship hetween the Chairman of the Commission and State
Treasurer is perhaps more direct. The State Treasurer is required by law to
approve and sign all leases before they can he effective and both Treasurer
Dwyer and Chairman Conner signed the lease hetween FAMCO and the Commonwealth
for space in the Manor Building in Pittsburgh.
Paul J. Smith Dissent December 24, 1985
Page 3
In 1995, while this same lease was in effect, the Ethics Commission riled
on serious issues relating to the State Treasurer's appointment of a proxy to
the Pennsylvania Higher Educational Facilities Authority. The issues faced hy
the Ethics Commission included the authority of the Treasurer to make this
appointment. See Richards, 376. Commissioner Conner voted in this case and
he shouldn't have if he wished to avoid the "appearance of a conflict with the
puhlic trust" as descrihed in Section 1 of the Act. He should recuse himself
in all future cases involving personnel of the State Treasurer's Office.
We are also advised that James F. Malone, a recently appointed Turnpike
Commissioner is one of the members in the FAMCO partnership which holds the
lease for space provided in the Manor Building for the Attorney General's
Office in Pittshurgh. Mr. Malone is also a memher of Mr. Conner's law firm.
This close association through the practice of law and the FAMCO partnership
hetween Mr. Conner and Mr. Malone prompts me to suggest that Mr. Conner must
recuse himself in any matter involving the Turnpike Commission while Mr.
Malone serves as a member of that Commission. The Turnpike Commission took
the Ethics Commission to Court in a major dispute regarding the Ethics
Commission's jurisdiction over Turnpike Officials and employees,
Camiel vs. State Ethics Commission, 425 A.2d 60, 56 Pa. Commw. 518, 1981. See
also Wilson, 80 -023. In another case, the Ethics Commission issued a very
restrictive ruling involving Mr. Jack Greenblatt and his business activities
when he was Chairman of the Turnpike Commission. See Greenblatt, 79 -009.
Sufficient douhts are raised here with respect to the connection hetween
Commissioners Malone and Conner as members of the same law firm and partners
on a state lease to call for Conner's recusal in all matters hetween the
Ethics Commission and the Turnpike Commission personnel if an "appearance of a
violation of the • public trust" is to he avoided.
The Department of General Services negotiates with and monitors landlords
who hold lease for state office space. This Department was responsible for
reviewing and approving this lease with FAMCO for the Manor Building and puts
Commissioner Conner in direct contact with this Department regarding
suhstantial financial involvement and he should recuse himself in all matters
before the Ethics Commission affecting any employee of this Department if he
is to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest under Section 1 of the
Act.
With respect to the Governor's Office personnel, suhstantial leases such
as the Manor Building Pact are not approved without favorable action hy that
office. It is obvious then that Commissioner Conner should recuse himself in
all matters involving all personnel of the Governor's Office.
Paul J. Smith Dissent
Page 4
December 24, 1985
Mr. Conner is the principal owner of the Yellow Cab Company of Pittsburgh
as noted in the majority opinion. This company, of course, is regulated by
the Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission and must make application to the
Public Utilities Commission in order to operate in the Commonwealth. That
Agency must review all applications and may hold hearings and take evidence on
these applications and also has the responsibility of enforcing the laws,
rules, and regulations of the Public Utility Commission. They also have the
duty and authority to take action suspending or revoking the license of
operations they regulate. The officials and employees of the Public Utility
Commission are subject to the Ethics Act and there has been a serious dispute
with respect to certain officials and employees of the Public Utility
Commission and their rights and obligations under the Ethics Act. Some of
these cases went to Court. See Pennsylvania Utility Commission Bar
Association vs. Governor Thornburg an o ers inc using e a e thics
Commission; 498 Pa. 589 450 A.2d 613, 1982. In another case, one of the Public
Utility Commissioners had a disagreement with the Ethics Commission with
respect to the restriction put on him after his resignation from the Public
Utility Commission. See Carter, 79 -065, 79 -066.
Mr. Conner's participation in any matter involving an employee or
official of the Public Utility Commission would result in his involvement in a
matter regarding an agency that controls his company's right to operate a taxi
cab company in this Commonwealth. His personal financial interests would be
in conflict with or at least appear to he in conflict with the public trust.
To have the,owner of a Cab company regulated by the Public Utility Commission
sit in judgment of a Public Utility Commission Commissioner or any of its
employees is a clear violation of the spirit and the letter of Section 1 of
the Ethics Act and I, therefore, think Commissioner Conner should recuse
himself in all matters between the Ethics Commission and the Public Utility
Commission.
The State Revenue Department, through an advertising agency, places ads
for the State Lottery Bureau and they are to be displayed on Yellow Cab taxis
in Pittsburgh. The Ethics Commisiion has had to rule on serious charges
involving a Deputy Secretary of the Revenue Department. See Matson, 220, 271.
As recently as June, 1985, the Commission gave an opinion on the obligations
of the retiring Executive Director of the State Lottery. See Nelson, 85 -008.
In view of the substantial beneficial financal interest Commissioner Conner
has with the Revenue Department, I think he should recuse himself in all cases
involving Revenue Department employees i f he wi shes to remove the "appearance
of a conflict with the public trust" under Section 1 of the Act.
The Yellow Cab Company of Pittsburgh also holds or will hold contracts
for transportation services with some School nistricts in the Pittsburgh area.
For the same reasons given above, I think he should recuse himself from
matters between the Ethics Commission and the school districts involved.
Paul J. Smith flissent
Page 5
December 24, 1985
Commissioner Conner has also acknowledged on his Statement of Financial
Interests that he has a financial interest in certain pipe line leases in
western Pennsylvania. most pipe lines in Pennsylvania are regulated and
licensed hy the Public Utility Commission and the nepartment of Environmental
Resources. If these leases fall under the control of these agencies, then Mr.
Conner should recuse himself in all cases involving employees of these
agencies.
In an opinion involving Governor Thornburgh and his use of the, rovernor's
Mansion for a political fund raising affair (May 1R, 19R4, Order 323), I said
that the conclusion was influenced hy the sincere conviction that the
Commonwealth's highest elected officer should he required to manifest at
least the same degree of puhlic probity and official impartiality in the use
of the puhlic facilities at his disposal as is required of memhers of the
Commonwealth's General Assembly and which should he required of all puhlic
officials in the Commonwealth. Ry the same token, the same high standards we
recommend for those who come before the Ethics Commission for guidance must
also he adhered to hy each member of the Ethics Commission if'we hope to avoid
puhlic and official censure.
To avoid puhlic misperception, Mr. Conner should publicly declare all
existing contracts and future contracts with the agencies cited in the
Commission's Opinion and in this Dissent, and other puhlic hodies if contracts
are made with agencies not listed herein, and he should ahstain from any
participation in matters hetween those agencies and the Ethics Commission.
I regret that this dissent is so long but since Mr. Conner asked for a
ruling in this matter he is entitled to a full review of the issues involved.
In accordance with the ruling of the acting Chairman, I have confined my
observations to the areas covered in Mr. Conner's request.
PJS /sfh
Srryit', Commissioner