HomeMy WebLinkAbout90-008 GovachiniSTATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120
OPINION OF THE COMMISSION
Before: Helena G. Hughes, Chair
Robert W. Brown, Vice Chair
G. Sieber Pancoast
Dennis C. Harrington
James M. Howley
DATE DECIDED: March 30, 1990
DATE MAILED: May 3, 1990
Mr. Dennis Govachini
Attorney at Law
311 -312 First United Federal Building
Ebensburg, PA 15931
II. Factual Basis for Determination:
90-008
Re: Conflict, Public Official, Township Supervisor, State
Convention, Resolution, Advancement of Authorized Expenses.
Dear Mr. Govachini:
This Opinion is issued in response to your request of March 13,
1990.
I. Issue:
Whether under the Public Official and Employee Ethics Law the
board of supervisors of a second class township may by resolution
advance the expenses for attendance of the delegates to the state
convention if itemized expenses would be properly submitted after
the convention with an accounting for any overpayments.
On behalf of the Cambria Township Board of Supervisors, you
inquire as to whether it would be permissible for the Board to
advance to its delegates a reasonable amount of reimbursable
expenses prior to their attendance at the state convention. The
advancement would be utilized to pay authorized expenses, including
the registration fee, lodging, food and mileage. After referencing
§612 of the Second Class Township Code, 53 P.S. §65612, which
provides for the authorized expenses for delegates to the state
convention, you inquire as to whether the Board of Supervisors could
authorize by resolution the payment in advance of the registration
fee, food, lodging and mileage. The advancement of the reimbursable
expenses would be paid shortly prior to the convention with the
requirement that within a reasonable time after the convention the
delegates would submit an itemized account of expenses showing any
under or over payment followed by any necessary reimbursements.
Mr. Dennis Govachini
Page 2
III. Discussion:
The supervisors of Cambria Township are public officials as that
term is defined under the Public Official and Employee Ethics Law.
Accordingly, they are subject to the provisions of the Ethics Law
and the restrictions therein are applicable to them.
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 following terms are defined under 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 business with which he or a
member of his immediate family is associated.
"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 determining whether the delegates may receive an advancement
of reimbursable expenses relative to attendance at the state
convention, we can not address that question under the Second Class
Township Code. Since we do not have jurisdiction to interpret the
provisions of the Second Class Township Code, our determination in
this case is limited expressly to the propriety of such action under
the Ethics Law. Although it is beyond the scope of this Commission
Mr. Dennis Govaohini
Page 3
to interpret laws other than the Ethics Law, it may in certain
instances be necessary for us to review certain provisions of other
laws to the extent that those laws impact upon the Ethics Law.
The Second Class Township Codes provides for expenses and
mileage at the State Convention as follows:
The expenses allowed the delegates attending
the annual meeting shall be limited to the
registration fee, mileage for use of a personal
vehicle or reimbursement of actual transportation
expense going to and returning from such meeting
plus all other actual expenses that the township
board of supervisors may have agreed to pay. Every
delegate attending the annual meeting shall submit
to the township board of supervisors an itemized
account of expenses incurred thereat. The township
board of supervisors may authorize township
employees to be compensated at their regular employe
rate during their attendance at the annual meeting.
No delegate shall receive expenses for more than
four days including the time employed in traveling
thereto and therefrom, together with mileage going
to and returning from such meeting. 53 P.S. B65612.
Section 3(a) of the Ethics Law provides in part that a public
official may not use the authority of office to obtain a private
pecuniary benefit for himself. The specific question becomes
whether a resolution for an advance payment of reimbursable expenses .
for attendance at the state convention would contravene Section 3(a)
of the Ethics Law quoted above. In this instance, we believe that
the voting for a resolution which would advance these reimbursable
authorized expenses would be permissible because the delegates would
be receiving an advancement to which they would be entitled under
the law. Clearly, the delegates who attend the state convention and
incur these authorized expenses are entitled to reimbursement. In
this instance, the resolution would merely shift the reimbursement
to a point in time prior rather than subsequent to the state
convention. Since the expenses and mileage are authorized in law,
the fact that they would be received at a prior time through a
resolution rather than subsequently would not be prohibited by the
Ethics Law as long as the expenses themselves are those which are
authorized and secondly as long as reimbursement is promptly made
after the convention for any overpayments.
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 Act has not been considered in that they do not
Mr. Dennis Govachini
Page 4
involve an interpretation of the Ethics Law. Specifically not
addressed in this Opinion is whether such action is permissible
under the Second Class Township Code.
IV. Conclusion:
Second Class Township Supervisors are public officials subject to
the provisions of the Ethics Law. Section 3(a) of the Ethics Law
would not prohibit a board of supervisors through resolution from
advancing the reimbursable expenses for attendance of the delegates
to the state convention provided the expenses are those that are
authorized and provided an itemized expense account would be
promptly submitted after the convention with an accounting for any
overpayments. 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 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 ommission
elena G. Hughes,
Chair