Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout86-006-R SkellyKenneth R. Skelly Chief Counsel Liquor Control Roard 406 Northwest Office Ruilding Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17124 ( STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 OPINION OF THE COM'iISSION DECIDEDOGI 21 a 86 MAILED r b 86 -006 -R Faith S. Diehl, Attorney Liquor Control Roard 406 Northwest Office Ruilding Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17124 Re: Statement of Financial Interests, Full -Time Puhlicly Employed Attorney, Reconsideration of Opinion 86 -006 Dear Mr. Skelly and Ms. Diehl: This opinion is issued pursuant to your request of September 10, 1986, seeking reconsideration of Opinion No. 86 -006. I. Issue: Whether the State Ethics Commission should reconsider its previous opinion holding that the Chief Counsel and an Attorney II for the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Roard were required to file Statements of Financial Interests in accordance with the provisions of the State Ethics Act. II, Factual Rasis for Determination: On or ahout April 28, 1986, you forwarded to the State Ethics Commission a financial disclosure appeal form wherein you indicated that you were declining to file a Statement of Financial Interests in accordance with the State Ethics Act pending the resolution of a Commonwealth Court case involving the requirement that publicly employed attorneys comply with the provisions of the State Ethics Act. Your appeal form was received on May 8, 1986, and was processed as a request for an Advice of Counsel. On July 9, 1986, Advice No. 86 -582 was issued. That advice concluded, that as Chief Counsel to the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Roard, you were a public employee within the purview of the State Ethics Act and that you were, therefore, required to file a Statement of Financial Interests in accordance with that law. Kenneth R. Skelly, Cnief Counsel Faith S. Diehl, Attorney Page 2 On July 24, 1986, you requester) that the full Commission review the aforementioned Advice of Counsel. fn August 12, 1986, ails. Faith Diehl, an Attorney II with the Liquor Control Rnard joined your appeal. On August 20, 1986, the State Ethics Commission issued Op;nI +n No. 86 -06 eonc riding that hoth you and Ms. Diehl were public employees 4rithin tre pu vie' of the State Ethics Act, and thereby required to file the Statement of Financial Interests in accordance therewith. On September 10, 1986, you ,`i led a eequ =est for reconsideration once again asserting that you should not he regeuireed to file a Statement of Financial Interests pending the resolution of the previously mentioned Commonwealth Court case, Maunus v. State Ethics i i ;s ore, 277 C,f1. 1985. On Septemher 12, 1986, two days after you filed your request for reconsideration, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania issued its Opinion and Order in the aforementioned case. The ruling of the Commonwealth Court, in that matter, held that the financial disclosure provisions of the State Ethics Act were invalid as they applied to puhlic employees performing professional legal duties. On September 30, 1986, the State Ethics Commission filed a petition for allowance iowance of appeal in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvanio, Discuss on: In the instant matter, we have heen asked to reconsider our +)pinion in 86-Of(. Generally, the issues to he considered in reviewing o request: for eeconsideraticm of the type presented herein, are limited. The -Jscretion of ae administrative agency granting or denying reconsideration is broad and, i' ex'Ircised in a sound manner, will he sustained. See, Krane, 84- 001-R. Keeo 3ideration of an agency decision is generally granted to afford an opportunity to adduce testimony or evidence not offered at the oriynal proceeding because it was not available. Douglas v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, 32 Pa. Comm. Ct. 156, 377 A.2d 1300, (1977), Rehearing is generally not granted solely for the purpose of strengthening 11 weak case or for the purpose of hearing testimony which may he cumulative. Pennsylvania Glass /Sand Corporation v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Roard, 46 Pa. Comm. Ct. 377, 407 A.2d 76, (1979). These well estahlished provisions of law have specifically heen adopted by the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission in reviewing requests for reconsideration of Commission opinions. . oy1e, 83 -002, 0ohnson /Hartman, 86- 004 -R. In the instant situation, your Bequest for reconsideration, while not primarily hased upon the Commonwealth Court decision in Maunus and Thau which was issued after your request was made, must he considered in light of that ()Orion. Specifically, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania decided that, "The financial disclosure provisions of the Ethics Act are invalid as they apply to puf~;1ic employees performing professional legal duties." Kenneth R. Skelly, Chief Counsel Faith S. niehl, Attorney Page 3 This Commission, however, has appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure pr:ov de that the taking of an appeal by the Commonwealth or any officer thereof, acting in an official capacity, should operate as a supersedeas in favor or such party. Pa. R.A.P., Rule 1736, 42 Pa. C.S.A. The Order of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania is, therefore, suspended pending review hy the Supreme Court; of Pennsylvania. !ale, thus, believe that the Statement of t i na,tci a1 interests filing requirement, even" as applied to attorneys, remains effective until such issue is addressed by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, This Cer•.,nission is mandated to administer that prevision of the law and as such, will deny your request for reconsideration. IV. Conclusion: The request for reconsideration is denied. You muss:, Yichin thirty (30) nays from the date of this opinion, file a Statement of Fi nanT�i a1 Interests in accordance with the State Ethics Act. The original the statement should he forwarded to this Commission. Additionally, it is noted until the final resolution of the litic'atiorj that is currently pending in The :supreme Court of Pennsylvania, this Commission will cnntin>>e tc mental!: ; ; ;; oforce its positions that puhlic officials (Ind puhlic ermployees, p---ling professional legal services, must continue to file Statements or Final,.. i Interests. 3y the Commsion, SieLr PLnc. oast .'hair ri,_;Z