Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout89-012 Davis1989. Dear Mr. Davis: I. Issue: III. Discussion: STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 OPINION OF THE COMMISSION Before: Helena G. Hughes, Chair W. Thomas Andrews G. Sieber Pancoast Dennis C. Harrington Michael J. Washo Date Decided: July 28, 1989 Date Mailed: AuguRt 8, 1989 Mr. Philip E. Davis 89 -012 RD #6, Box 1516 Mount Pleasant, PA 15666 Re: Conflict, School Director, Voting on Wage Increase for School Police, Father, Immediate Family This Opinion is issued in response to your request of June 28, Whether a school board member under the Public Official and Public Employees Ethics Law may vote in a requested wage increase by the school police when the member's father is a school district policeman. II. Factual Basis for Determination: You are a Director of the Mount Pleasant Area School District wherein your father is a member of the school police. A wage increase has been requested by the school police who are part -time employees of the District. You request advice as to whether it would be proper for you to vote on the requested wage increase. As a School Director of Mount Pleasant Area School District, you are a public official as that term is defined under the Public Official and Employee Ethics Law of June 26, 1989, Act 9 of 1989. Accordingly, you are subject to the provisions of the Ethics Law and the restrictions therein are applicable to you. Mr. Philip E. Davis Page 2 Section 3(a) of the Ethics Law provides: Section 3. Restricted Activities. (a) No public official or public employee shall engage in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest. The term "conflict" is defined in the Ethics Law as follows; Section 2. Definitions. "Conflict or conflict of interest." Use by a public official or public employee of the authority of his office or employment or any confidential information received through his holding public office or employment for the private pecuniary benefit of himself, a member of his immediate family or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. "Conflict" or "conflict of interest" does not include an action having a de minimis economic impact or which affects to the same degree a class consisting of the general public or a subclass consisting of an industry, occupation or other group which includes the public official or public employee, a member or his immediate family or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. In addition, the terms, "Authority of Office or Employment" and "Immediate Family" are defined as follows: Section 2. Definitions. "Authority of office or employment." The actual power provided by law, the exercise of which is necessary to the performance of duties and responsibilities unique to a particular public office or position of public employment. "Immediate family." A parent, spouse, child, brother or sister. In addition, Sections 3(b) and 3(c) of the Ethics Law provide in part that no person shall offer to a public official /employee anything of monetary value or no public official /employee shall solicit or accept any thing of monetary value based upon the understanding that the vote, official action, or judgement of the public official /employee would be influenced thereby. Mr. Philip E. Davis Page 3 Although it is clear under the Ethics Law that your father is a member of your "immediate family ", it is necessary to review your proposed conduct to determine whether your voting would constitute a conflict under the Ethics Law. An exclusion exists within the definition of conflict regarding use of the authority of office which affects to the same degree a class or sub -class consisting of an occupation which would include a member of the public official's immediate family. In the instant matter, your father is a member of the school police of the school district. However, in order for the exclusion within the definition of conflict to apply, it is necessary that your father be part of a sub -class of school police, that is, there must be more than one school policeman. In addition, your father could not be affected any differently from any of the other school police. Subject to the above two qualifications, the Ethics Law would not preclude you from voting on the wage increase request. Our result reflects the legislative intent that a public official does not have a conflict as to himself, a member of his immediate family on basis with which he is associated when he, a member of his family or the business is not affected any differently from the class or sub- class. Lastly, the propriety of the proposed conduct has only been addressed under the Ethics Law; the applicability of any other statute, code, ordinance, regulation or other code of conduct other than the Ethics Law has not been considered in that they do not involve an interpretation of the Ethics Act. IV. Conclusion: As a school director for the Mount Pleasant Area School District, you are a "public official" subject to the provision of the Ethics Law. The Ethics Law does not preclude you from voting on a wage request for the school police, of which your father is a member, provided there are more than one policeman in the class and provided your father is affected to the same degree as all other school police as to the wage request. Lastly, the propriety of the proposed conduct has only been addressed under the Ethics Law. 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 evidence of the advice given. Mr. Philip E. Davis Page 4 such. This letter is a public record and will be made available as Finally, any person may request the Commission to reconsider its Opinion. The reconsideration request must be received 'at this Commission within fifteen days of the mailing date of this Opinion. The person requesting reconsideration should present a detailed explanation setting forth the reasons why the Opinion requires reconsideration. By th= Commission, lena G. Hughes Chairman