HomeMy WebLinkAbout91-002 ConfidentialI. Issue:
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
Daneen E. Reese
Roy W. Wilt
DATE DECIDED: February 14, 1991
DATE MAILED: March 21, 1991
II. Factual Basis for Determination:
91 -002
Re: Public Official, Former Public Official, Executive Level
Employee, Offer of Employment.
This Opinion is issued in response to your confidential request
of December 5, 1990.
Whether the Public Official and Employee Ethics Law presents any
prohibition or restrictions upon an executive -level state employee from
accepting an offer of employment from a corporation that has
involvement with his agency.
A heads the O. A also chairs various boards and Commissions
within the 0 such as T. In addition, U is an agency outside of the 0
of which A is a board member.
A inquires as to the propriety of his employment by C as its
president under the Ethics Law. C as a Pennsylvania non - profit
corporation was formed in May 1983 and qualifies as a tax - exempt
organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. C
is a supporting organization of the D which is also a Pennsylvania non-
profit corporation and a tax - exempt industry association under Section
501(c)(6) of the internal Revenue Code. C has a corporate purpose as
follows:
Page 2
" a. To foster the growth of advanced technology;
b. To support and strengthen advanced technology enterprises;
c. To promote the development of advanced technology;
d. To promote education concerning and involving advanced
technology;
e. To encourage an awareness of advanced technology;
f. To provide access to information concerning the development
and implementation of advanced technology; and
g. To develop and maintain communications with regard to
advanced technology with members of the business community,
the media, and the federal, state and local governments in
order to promote an awareness and support of advanced
technology."
The board of directors of C are also directors of D. In addition, the
executive director of D is also the executive director of C and
additional administrative personnel have direct responsibility for C's
programs. After submitting the names of the six current directors of
the board of C, you state that the corporation during its first four
years of operation carried out its public program, education and
regional economic development activities largely funded by grants from
private and corporate foundations in western Pennsylvania including the
E.
The activities of C have focused on the diversification and
strengthening of the economy in western Pennsylvania and to that end
the objectives of the organization have evolved to include the
following: "1) extend the benefit of the emerging technology industry
throughout the region; 2) improve the competitive posture of the
existing traditional manufacturing sector; 3) build on the existing
research base to create a viable biomedical industry; and 4) foster
the area's knowledge resources (at all levels) and increase the
public's awareness of the opportunities presented by the growing
technology industry."
The public programs since 1983 have included educational programs
which provide advice and guidance to an array of school systems on
preparing graduates for knowledge -based technology- driven economy. In
particular, the programs include seminars, plant tours and a series of
annual job fairs directed towards bringing greater awareness and
understanding of job opportunities and the requirements of such
positions. A major initiative was undertaken by C in 1986 regarding
extending the benefits of the growing technology industry to parts of
the region which were hardest hit by the recession of the 1980's. With
Page 3
the support of a number of private and corporate foundations including
the G, C worked with the I in establishing an incubator designed to
attract new business to J and other parts of B.
Further in 1988, C undertook activities such as launching the K a
non - profit entity designed to facilitate the commercialization of
promising biomedical technology in western Pennsylvania which action
was undertaken to address the gap both in targeted funding and in
enhancing the capacity of scientists to deal with business building
aspects of their field. The K was capitalized with over $1.2 million
in private foundation support. Also in 1988, C led a consortium of
universities, and area economic development agencies and industry
groups to create the L as a separate program within the C corporate
structure. C has raised between 300 and 500 thousand dollars annually
in grants and fee income and between 1.5 and 2 million dollars in in-
kind support for this program. L has also received from the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 1.7 million dollars in each of the
program years for 1988 -1989 and 1989 -1990 and has been awarded a
contract for 1.4 million dollars in payments for the year 1990 -1991.
C in 1990 established a special M designed to provide capital
loans to companies in Pennsylvania which are attempting to become more
competitive in the manufacturing process. The M will be used primarily
to finance the installation of information systems and other software
systems and such program has been capitalized through a $1.5 million
grant from the H. It is anticipated in 1991 that C will restructure
from a supporting organization tied to the D to a stand alone entity
independent of D. C's future activities would be expanded to include a
number of regionally based economic development activities. In
addition, the N will be merged into C and initiatives will be
undertaken to expand investment and exports and focus on worker
training and education, with L continuing as a significant C program.
It is anticipated that C's operations will become more pro-
active, that is, to seek or assist manufacturers who because of size
or other reasons might not avail themselves of C services. In
addition, C will shift from a focus of partial reliance on state
funding to cover some of its operation costs, to corporate and private
foundation grants, federal grants and fees for service income as the
majority sources of its revenue. There are no current plans to apply
for other state grants although C will undertake new activities which
are yet to be determined. If such would occur, A would remove himself
from the process.
The proposed employment of A by C will be as its president with
overall responsibility for operations. Since L will remain a program
within C and some funding may continue from the Commonwealth on a
declining basis, all necessary procedures would be implemented in order
to comply with the provisions of Section 403(g) of the Ethics Law.
Thus, A would not appear, contact, communicate, or correspond with
employees or representatives of the 0 nor would he represent C in any
Page 4
fashion before the 0. Furthermore no bid or contract proposals with
the Department would be signed by him or contain his name during a
period of one year after his resignation. A would not during his first
year as president have direct responsibility for the day -to -day
operations of any program which would involve state funding and all
reasonable procedures to prevent any inadvertent transgression of
Section 3(g) of the Ethics Act would be implemented. You then express
your view that Section 3(i) of the Ethics Law is inapplicable to A
since the specific prohibition as to an executive -level state employee
is limited as to active participation regarding recruitment or
inducement to open a new plant, facility or branch or the expansion
thereof within the Commonwealth.
Although the P was established in July of 1987 which was prior to
A becoming Secretary of the 0, the implementation occurred during his
tenure. Thereafter in May 1988, a request for proposal (RFP) process
created R for the P. C became a recipient of state funds through the
above RFP which was issued generally to all persons within the
Commonwealth. In responding to the RFP, C led a consortium of
universities, area economic development agencies and industry groups in
submitting a proposal which was considered with many others and was one
of several which were selected as successful programs. Although there
was one other proposal submitted for S, there was no actual decision to
make between that proposal and the proposal by C which had the
coalition of universities, corporations, cities, counties as well as
the community support, matching funds and other factors. Although C
voluntarily requested to participate in the state program, you state
that it was not sought after and that A did not actively recruit or
induce C.
Finally, all of C's involvement with the 0 in connection with the
P has been with individuals serving as Directors of the Q and not
directly with A. It was the Q that implemented the program and the
RFP's as well as made the selection process and recommendations; A
reviewed and approved the recommendations as to R with consultation of
the F. As Secretary of the 0, A did have and has had discussions with
directors and officers of the D and C in connection with regional
development activities. Further, C received no funding from
Pennsylvania until it responded to the RFP. However, you state that A
had no direct involvement with C concerning the P nor did he request
or solicit or otherwise induce its participation in such a program.
A as Secretary of the 0 had ultimate responsibility for the P, and
his actions in fulfilling the responsibilities with regard to C and
the commitment of state funds to L was to supervise and review the
activities and approve the recommendations of the Director of the Q.
D has received grants from the V which have come from the regional
center with Pennsylvania giving a cursory review. A as Chair of the
Board of the V does have certain oversight and approval responsibility.
Page 5
The process is decentralized and it is rare for a regional center to be
overturned since A's review is pro forma.
C is interested in securing the talents of A whom it considers a
critical component for the success of its efforts to expand and extend
the rejuvenation of the Pennsylvania economy. The salary which will be
paid to A during his employment with C will be paid entirely from
private funds. You therefore request the views of this Commission as
to the propriety of the proposed employment by A as president of C.
III. Discussion:
As Secretary of 0, A is a public official as that term is defined
under the Ethics Law, and hence he is subject to the provisions of that
law. In addition, he is an executive -level state employee as that term
is defined under the Ethics Law, infra and subject to the requirements
of Section 3(i), infra.
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 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.
"Authority of office or employment." The
actual power provided by law, the exercise of
which is necessary to the performance of duties
Page 6
and responsibilities unique to a particular public
office or position of public employment.
"Executive -level State employee." The
Governor, Lieutenant Governor, cabinet members,
deputy secretaries, the Governor's office staff,
any State employee with discretionary powers which
may affect the outcome of a State agency's
decision in relation to a private corporation or
business or any employee who by virtue of his job
function could influence the outcome of such a
decision.
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 and no
public official /employee shall solicit or accept any thing of monetary
value based upon the understanding that the vote, official action, or
judgment of the public official /employee would be influenced thereby.
Reference is made to these provisions of the law not to imply that
there has or will be any transgression thereof but merely to provide a
complete response to the question presented.
Section 3(i) of the Ethics Law provides:
Section 3. Restricted Activities
(i) No former executive -level State employee
may for a period of two years from the time that he
terminates his State employment be employed by
receive compensation from, assist or act in a
representative capacity for a business or
corporation that he actively participates in
recruiting to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania or
that he actively participated in inducing to open
a new plant, facility or branch in the
Commonwealth or that he actively participated in
inducing to expand an existent plant or facility
within the Commonwealth, provided that the above
prohibition shall be invoked only when the
recruitment or inducement is accomplished by a
grant or loan of money from the Commonwealth to
the business or corporation recruited or induced
to expand.
Under Section 3(a) of the Ethics Law quoted above, a public
official may not use the authority of office or confidential
information to obtain a private pecuniary benefit for himself, a member
of his immediate family, or a business with which he or a member of his
immediate family is associated.
Page 7
As quoted above, Section 3(i) sets forth a specific prohibition
that a former executive -level state employee for a period of two years
after termination of state employment may not be employed or receive
any compensation or act in a representative capacity for a business or
corporation that the former executive -level state employee
participated in recruiting or inducing. It should be further noted
that the above restriction specifically applies to the situation where
the recruitment or inducement is accomplished by a grant or loan of
money or a promise of a grant or loan of money from the Commonwealth to
the business or corporation recruited or induced to expand. The
intendment of the above provision of the Ethics Law is to prohibit an
executive -level state employee from obtaining employment or acting as a
representative for various businesses or corporations that were
recruited or induced to expand. Thus, Section 3(i) of the Ethics Act
would restrict employment for a two year period as to any business or
corporation if the recruitment or inducement was accomplished by a
grant or loan of money or promise of a grant or loan of money from the
Commonwealth to the business or corporation which was recruited or
induced to expand. Section 3(i) of the Ethics Act would not preclude
employment or representation of clients unless the above qualifying
condition of Section 3(i) is applicable.
In applying the proffered facts to Section 3(a) of the Ethics
Law, Section 3(a) would prohibit A from using the position or
emoluments of public office or confidential information to advance an
opportunity of private employment with C. Once again, it is not
suggested that A has engaged in such conduct and the foregoing is
provided to give a complete response to your inquiry.
As to Section 3(i) of the Ethics Law, A is subject to that
provision of law since he is an executive -level state employee.
However, Section 3(i) would not restrict him from the position of
employment with C provided he did not actively participate in
recruiting or inducing C to open a new facility or branch in the
Commonwealth or participate in inducing C to expand an existing plant
or facility that was accomplished by a grant or loan of money from the
Commonwealth to C that was recruited or induced to expand.
In the instant matter, we do not believe that the employment of A
by C would be prohibited by Section 3(i) of the Ethics Act because the
proffered facts do not establish that A actively participated in either
recruiting or inducing C to open a new facility or branch or expand
through a grant or loan of money from the Commonwealth. Although it is
true that A as Secretary of the 0 would have certain broad overview
responsibilities by the very nature of his position, the submitted
facts state that there has been no active participation in the
recruitment or inducement. Accordingly and based upon the foregoing
assumptions, we are of the opinion that A would not be prohibited from
accepting the position of employment with C.
Page 8
At such time as A terminates public service, he would become a
former public official subject to the restrictions of Section 3(g) of
the Ethics Law.
Section 3. Restricted activities.
(g) No former public official or public
employee shall represent a person, with promised
or actual compensation, on any matter before the
governmental body with which he has been
associated for one year after he leaves that body.
The term "governmental body with which a public official or
public employee is or has been associated" is defined under the Ethics
Law as follows:
Section 2. Definitions
"Governmental body." Any department,
authority, commission, committee, council, board,
bureau, division, service, office, officer, o
administration, legislative body, or other
establishment in the Executive, Legislative or
Judicial Branch of a State, a nation, or a
political subdivision thereof or an agency
performing a governmental function.
In applying the above definition to the instant matter, we must
conclude that the governmental body with which A was associated upon
termination of public service would be 0, hereinafter Department, which
would specifically include all boards and commissions both within and
outside of the Department as to which A chaired or was a member. The
above is based upon the language of the Ethics Law, the legislative
intent (Legislative Journal of House, 1989 Session, No. 15 at 290, 291)
and the prior precedent of this Commission.
Therefore, within the first year after termination of public
service, Section 3(g) of the Ethics Law would apply and restrict
representation of persons or new employers vis -a -vis the Department.
Turning now to the scope of the restrictions under Section 3(g),
the Ethics Law does not affect one's ability to appear before agencies
or entities other than with respect to the former governmental body.
Likewise, there is no general limitation under Section 3(g) on the
type of employment in which a person may engage, following departure
from his governmental body. It is noted, however, that the conflicts
of interest law is primarily concerned with financial conflicts and
violations of the public trust. The intent of the law generally is
that during the term of a person's public employment he must act
consistently with the public trust and upon departure from the public
sector, that individual should not be allowed to utilize his
Page 9
association with the public sector, officials or employees to secure
for himself or a new employer, treatment or benefits that may be
obtainable only because of his association with his former
governmental body.
In respect to the one year representation, the Ethics Law defines
"Represent" as follows:
Section 2. Definitions.
"Represent." To act on behalf of any other
person in any activity which includes, but is not
limited to, the following: personal appearances,
negotiations, lobbying and submitting bid or
contract proposals which are signed by or contain
the name of a former public official or public
employee.
In addition, the term "Person" is defined as follows under the
Ethics Law:
Section 2. Definitions.
"Person." A business, governmental body,
individual, corporation, union, association, firm,
partnership, committee, club or other organization
or group of persons.
In Popovich, Opinion 89 -005, we have also interpreted the term
"representation" as used in Section 3(g) of the Ethics Law to
prohibit:
1. Personal appearances before the former governmental body or
bodies, including, but not limited to, negotiations or renegotiations
in general or as to contracts;
2. Attempts to influence;
3. Submission of bid or contract proposals which are signed or
contain the name of the former public official /employee;
4. Participating in any matters before the former governmental
body as to acting on behalf of a person;
5. Lobbying, that is representing the interests of any person
or employer before the former governmental body in relation to
legislation, regulations, etc.
This Commission has also held that listing one's name as the
person who will provide technical assistance on such proposal,
document, or bid, if submitted to or reviewed by the former
Page 10
governmental body constitutes an attempt to influence the former
governmental body. Therefore, within the first year after termination
of service, A should not engage in the type of activity outlined above.
A may, assist in the preparation of any documents presented to the
Department so long as he is not identified as the preparer. A may also
counsel any person regarding that person's appearance before the
Department. Once again, however, the activity in this respect should
not be revealed to the Department. Of course, any ban under the
Ethics Law would not prohibit or preclude the making of general
informational inquiries to secure information which is available to the
general public. This must not be done in an effort to indirectly
influence the former governmental body or to otherwise make known to
that body the representation of, or work for the new employer.
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 Law.
IV. Conclusion:
The Secretary for 0, is a public official and executive -level
state employee subject to the provisions of the Ethics Law.
Under Section 3(i) of the Ethics Law, the Secretary would not be
prohibited from accepting a position of employment with C since he did
not actively participate in inducing or recruiting C to open or expand
a facility or branch through a grant or loan of money from the
Commonwealth.
When the Secretary terminates service, he as a former public
official must comply with the restrictions of Section 3(g) noted above.
Lastly, the propriety of the proposed conduct has only been addressed
under the Ethics Law.
Further, should service be terminated, as outlined above, the
Ethics Law also requires that a Statement of Financial Interests be
filed for the year following termination of service.
Pursuant to Section 7(10), the person who acts in good faith on
this opinion issued to him shall not be subject to criminal or civil
penalties for so acting provided the material facts are as stated in
the request.
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
Page 11
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 Commission,
ennis . Har ngton,
Commissioner
Robert W. Brown, Vice Chair dissents only as to the finding that the
employment is not prohibited by Section 3(i) of the Ethics Law.
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120
Date: March 21. 1991
DISSENTING OPINION
On February 14, 1991, the Commission considered a
confidential request for an opinion as to the propriety of an
executive -level state employee, specifically the Secretary of the
0, accepting an offer of employment from a corporation that has
involvement with his agency. The complex factual record is
thoroughly set forth in the first five pages of the majority
opinion and will not be repeated herein. However, this dissent
is most significantly based upon the following facts.
A heads the 0. C is a Pennsylvania non - profit corporation
which qualifies as a tax - exempt organization under Section
501(c)(3) of the Interal Revenue Code. C is the prospective
employer of A.
In 1988, C led a consortium of universities and area
economic development agencies and industry groups to create the
L as a separate program within the C corporate structure. C
raised between three hundred and five hundred thousand dollars
annually in grants and fee income and between 1.5 and 2 million
dollars in in -kind support for this program. L has also received
from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 1.7 million dollars in each
of the program years for 1988 -1989 and 1989 -1990 and has been
awarded a contract for 1.4 million dollars in payments for the
year 1990 -1991. Although C has plans to restructure and to shift
from a focus of partial reliance on state funding to cover some
of its operation costs, to corporate and private foundation
grants, federal grants and fees for service income as the
majority sources of its revenue, L will continue as a significant
C program and some funding may continue from the Commonwealth on
a declining basis.
C did not receive funding from Pennsylvania until it
responded to a request for proposal (RFP) process related to the
P. As Secretary of the 0, A had ultimate responsibility for the
P. Although the Q implemented the program and the RFP's and made
the selection process and recommendations, it was A who reviewed
and approved the recommendations with consultation of the F. The
facts submitted to the Commission indicate that A's
responsibilities with regard to C and the commitment of state
funds to L were to supervise and review the activities and
approve the recommendations of the Director of the Q.
2
Furthermore, it should be noted that A also chairs various
boards and commissions within the Department including the V.
The V has provided grants to the D which is also a Pennsylvania
non - profit corporation and a tax exempt industry association
under Section 501(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code. C is a
supporting organization of D. The board of directors of C are
also directors of D and the executive director of D is also the
executive director of C, with additional administrative personnel
having direct responsibility for C's programs. These grants have
come from the regional center with Pennsylvania reviewing them.
As Chair of the Board of the V, A does have certain oversight and
approval responsibility.
C now seeks to hire Secretary A as its president. On
February 14, 1991, the Commission expressed an opinion affirming
the ethical propriety of Secretary A's proposed employment by C.
I dissented only as to the finding that the employment is not
prohibited by Section 3(i) of the Ethics Law. Various assurances
were provided by Secretary A and C that every effort would be
made to comply with the requirements of the Ethics Law, and it is
important to note that my dissent is not based upon any doubt
with regard to the integrity and good intentions of the Secretary
or his prospective employer. Rather, I must dissent from a
recognition of the command and control that a public official and
executive -level state employee in such a capacity exercises in
the discretionary process of awarding such grants. I interpret
the Ethics Law as prohibiting this sort of situation where an
organization applies for and receives a grant as a result of a
grant funding process from a particular department, and may
indeed exist largely as a result of that grant, only to have the
public official /executive -level state employee leave his
official post and accept employment with that very organization.
This dissent is based upon an objective standard, and for the
reasons which follow.
Section 3(i) specifically prohibits a former executive -level
state employee from being employed or receiving any compensation
or acting in a representative capacity for a business or
corporation that the former executive -level state employee
participated in recruiting or inducing. The prohibition is for
two years after the termination of state employment. This
restriction specifically applies where the recruitment or
inducement is accomplished by a grant or loan of money or a
promise of a grant or loan of money from the Commonwealth to the
business or corporation recruited or induced to expand.
In the instant matter, I believe that the employment of A by
C would be prohibited by Section 3(i) of the Ethics Act because
the proffered facts establish that A did actively participate in
recruiting or inducing C to open a new facility or branch or
expand through a grant or loan of money from the Commonwealth. A
as Secretary of the 0 would have certain broad overview
responsibilities by the very nature of his position. But
furthermore, the submitted facts specifically state that A as
Secretary of the 0 had ultimate responsibility for the P, and his
actions in fulfilling the responsibilities with regard to C and
the commitment of state funds to L were to supervise and review
the activities and approve the recommendations of the Director of
the Q. The submitted facts do not specifically state that A also
had the discretionary responsibility to direct the activities or
disapprove the recommendations of the Director of the Q, but
given the nature of his office, his ultimate responsibility for
the P, and his supervisory and reviewing role over the activities
of the Director of the Q who offered those recommendations, it is
clear that A had the discretionary responsibility to direct the
activities and /or to approve or disapprove such recommendations
of the Director. As Secretary of the 0, A had the final say as
to which organizations would receive state funding. He was the
"captain of the ship" with regard to the commitment of state
funds to the interests of the entity which is now his prospective
employer.
It is my opinion that the exercise by A of his discretionary
powers with regard to his above responsibilities was active. He
not only participated, but he made the ultimate decisions.
Although it was suggested to the Commission that C
voluntarily requested to participate in the state program and was
not sought after or actively recruited or induced by A, this is
the issue to be determined by this Commission.
The Ethics Law does not define "recruiting" or inducing."
However, the language of Section 3(i) clearly states that a grant
or loan of money may accomplish the "recruitment" or inducement ":
...provided that the above prohibition shall
be invoked only when the recruitment or
inducement is accomplished by a grant or loan
of money or a promise of a grant or loan of
money from the Commonwealth to the business
or corporation recruited or induced to
expand.
65 P.S. S403(i) (Emphasis Added).
The legislative history would support this conclusion. The
proponent of the amendment which included the statutory section
at issue stated:
The need, again, for this type of law is
clear. We hear a lot today about businesses
being recruited into Pennsylvania. That is
4
good, but along with that and the millions of
dollars of inducement through loans or grants
or whatever that are provided, there should
be a safeguard....There is a potential for
self dealing and the possibility of
personally profiting from these negotiating
efforts.
Legislative Journal of House, 1978 Session, No. 42 at 2995
(Emphasis added).
In this case, I believe the submitted facts establish
active participation in recruiting or inducement which includes
but goes beyond grants. The submitted facts clearly state that
although C voluntarily requested to participate in the state
program, it was selected from among others as a successful
program. Although only one other proposal was submitted for S,
which other program may or may not have been of a competitive
caliber, a selection was indeed made. Furthermore, A had ultimate
responsibility for the P, and his actions in fulfilling the
responsibilities with regard to C and the commitment of state
funds to L were to supervise and review the activities and
approve the recommendations of the Director of the Q. Inherent
in his level of responsibility was the discretion to direct those
activities or to disapprove such recommendations. His exercise
of his discretionary powers included, but was not limited to,
decisions regarding the commitment of state funds. I have no
difficulty in concluding that A thereby actively participated in
either recruiting or inducing C to open a new facility or branch
or expand through a grant or loan of money from the Commonwealth.
I am therefore of the opinion that A is prohibited under the
Ethics Law from accepting the position of employment with C. As
previously stated, I do not question the personal integrity or
good intentions of the Secretary, but am mindful of the stated
purpose of the Ethics Law that a public office is a public trust
and the people have a right to be assured that the financial
interests of the holders of public office do not conflict with
the public trust.
For the reasons stated above, I
opinion but must respectfully dissen
cannot join in
Robert W. Brown
Vice Chairman
the majority