Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout89-028 WolfgangMs. Martha R. Wolfgang 7708 Althea Ave. Harrisburg, PA 17112 STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 OPINION OF THE COMMISSION Before: Robert W. Brown, Vice Chair G. Sieber Pancoast Dennis C. Harrington James M. Howley Michael J. Washo DATE DECIDED: October 26, 1989 DATE MAILED: Nnvemhor 8. 1989 II. Factual Basis for Determination: 89 - 028 Re: Conflict, Public Official, Candidate, Vote, Campaign Contribution, Building Permits, Sewer Permits, Township Supervisor. Dear Ms. Wolfgang: This Opinion is issued in response to your request of September 19, 1989. I. Issue: Whether the Public Official and Employee Ethics Law imposes any restrictions upon a township supervisor voting on requests for building or sewer permits submitted by contributors to the official's election campaign. You are a candidate appearing on both the Republican and Democratic ballots for the office of supervisor of West Hanover Township, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania. You have accepted political contributions from several contractors totalling $600.00. These contributors who are in the building contracting business made such contributions from their private accounts rather than their corporate accounts. You reported the amounts of the contributions as well as the name and address of the contributors on your Statement of Financial Interests. An inquiry has been raised with the current board of supervisors as to whether you, if elected, may vote on any issues involving those particular contractors. After noting the publicity on this matter, you indicate that the current board of supervisors has determined that Ms. Martha K. Wolfgang. Page 2 you should not vote on such issues if you are elected. No negotiations on building plans have taken place from the time of the contributions to the present and no negotiations are planned for the foreseeable future. You maintain that no quid pro quo was ever mentioned, suggested, or insinuated and that the newspapers and have frivolously charged that you would have a. conflic In addition, you own eight lots which you bought twelve years ago in a development called Skyline View. These lots were slated for sewers 20 years ago. You state that DER has mandated that this area receive sewers which decision will not be altered by any actions of the developers. None of the contributors have matters currently pending before the township board of supervisors. You inquire as to whether a conflict would arise under the Ethics Law if you would vote on a township issue involving a person who made a contribution to your campaign for township supervisor. III. Discussion: If you are elected to the position of township supervisor, you would be a public official as that term is defined under the Public Official and Employee Ethics Law. Accordingly, you would be subject to the provisions of the Ethics Law. The Ethics Law provides in part as follows: Section 3. Restricted Activities. (a) No public official or public employee shall engage in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest. The following terms are defined in the Ethics Law: 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 Ms. Martha K. Wolfgang. Page 3 IV. Conclusion: business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. 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. In addition, Section 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 and 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 b.e influenced thereby. As to Section . 3(a)of the Ethics Law, this particular provision of law would not have application to the instant receipt of the ,contributions since you were not a public official at the time of the receipt thereof Thus the provision of Section 3(a) would not impose any prohibitions upon your contemplated actions as a public official. As to Sections 3(b) and (c) of the Ethics Law, the fact that someone has made a contribution to - a campaign for public office does not per se create an "understanding" between the contributor and candidate which would be prohibited by the two sections of the Ethics Law. On the submitted facts, we have no evidence to indicate that any understanding exists between the receipt of the contributions and your future voting, if you are elected. Therefore, based upon the facts as you presented them and based upon the express assumption that no understanding exists, the Ethics Law would not restrict your voting on issues as to these contractors. Finally, the propriety of the proposed conduct has been addressed only under the Ethics Law; the applicability of any other statute, code, ordinance, regulation or any other code of conduct other than the Ethics Law has not been considered in that they do not involve an interpretation of the Ethics Law. If elected to the office of township supervisor the candidate would become a public official subject to the provisions of the Ethics Law. A contribution to a campaign for public office does not per se create a conflict if the candidate is elected. Since there is no indication that an understanding exists between the contributions and the candidate's future voting on issues concerning the contributors, Ms. Martha R. Wolfgang. Page 4 the Ethics Law would not restrict such person's voting in such issues based expressly upon the above assumption. 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 on the advice given. This letter is a public record and will be made available as such. 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 the o . ission, Robert W. Brown, Vice Chair