Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout91-004 BakerHonorable Earl M. Baker 209 W. Lancaster Avenue Paoli, PA 19301 Dear Senator Baker: 1989. I. Issue: litArE ETHICS COMMISSION +308 FINANCE BUILDING HAPIN)SBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 1 OPINION OP THE COMMISSION Before: �ielena G. rughree, Chair Hobert W. krowli Vite Chair Defthis e. Matrington laNes M. Howley 3eneen g. Risese Roy W. Idle Austin M. Le+e D TR MIND: 4 - .op1 CAME MAILBDc sig 0, 1991 Re: Conflict, Public Official, General Assembly, Senator, Honorarium, Seminar, Speaking Fee, Political Science This Opinion is isSuedin response to yb11f request of October 16, Whether a member of the General Assembly under the Public Official and Employee Ethics Law may accept a $500 fee for speaking at a Seminar on a subject of legislative priorities for local government. It. )actual Basis for Determination: You are the Senator for the 19th Senatorial District in the Commenweilth Of Pennsylvania, You have accepted an invitation to speak at a Aelbinar from two professors under whom you studied while i+ srkill on your doctorate at American University. you have been offered i $500 fee for speaking on the subject of legislative priorities for local government: After noting that lawyers who are migMbets of the General Attembly may be paid for providing legal, semi ®ea to enente, yOU state that a political scientist should alse be able to receive $ fee far hid servides. You, as a me bf the General Ageeffibly whtjse profession is political science, request an opinibft as tO the propriety of the acceptance of this fee. Honorable Earl M. Baker Page 2 You have submitted your letter of invitation which reflects that IBM is hosting a seminar on the subject of "Decision Making in State and Local Government ". As dinner speaker, you were requested to Make a twenty to thirty minute presentation on the subject of "Legislative Priorities for Local Government" followed by a question and answer period. You would be addressing approximately fifty IBM marketing representatives who sell to state and local governments in Pennsylvania. The program, which is sponsored by a private consulting group, consists of a two day seminar on the general subject of how decisions are made in state and local government. The group "will be meeting with state and local officials, academics and private sector executives in order to better understand the environment, process and actors who help to influence issues in the Pennsylvania decisio3i making system ". The letter of invitation concludes by noting that a $500 payment would be made to you for your participation in the seminar in the capacity as an academic expert. You have enclosed your resume which reflects inter alia that you have received an A.B. Degree in Political Science as well as a Ph.D. (and M.A.) in Government. As an Assistant Professor and Faculty Associate, you have taught political science at Temple University. You have authored, and in one instance co- authored, eight publications on various subjects involving political science or government on federal, state, or local governmental issues or the interplay of the foregoing. Further, you have been a panelist or speaker at several "professional and civic meetings and conferences." Finally, you have worked with numerous groups, associations or bodies: political, governmental, educational, business or non profit. III. Discussion: As a Senator for the General Assembly of the Gominonwealth of Pennsylvania, you are a public official as that term is defined under the Public official and Employee Ethic's Law and as such are subject to the provisions of that law. Section 3(a) of the Ethics Law provides: ggatigx1.3. _... Restricted Activities (a) NO public official or public employee shall engage in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest. 65 P.S. §402(a). Section 8(d) of the Ethics Law provides: Section 3.. Restricted activities (d) (1) No public official or public employee shall accept an Honorarium. Honorable Earl M. Baker Page 3 (2) Thib subsection shall not be applied retroactively. 65 P . S . :5■103(d ) . The follOwing tefins are defined under the Et Law: Section 2. Defihitiont "Conflict" or "conflict ci interest. " 'DIA by a public offitial "Ot public - ftp101isto 'of the authority C)f his office or temploYment or any confidential informatiOn redeived 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 riot 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. 65 P.B. S402.. "Authority of office or employment.. " The actual power provided by law, the exercise which is necessary to the perfofance4f &itie and responsibilities unigde to a 'put;lib office or position of public , emploYmtit.. t5 §402. "HondrariUM. " Payment made •4 :i-e-edigiiIt6d4 (�f published works, appearances, presentations and which is riot - lin , Onded "cbnsideration for the value bf 1 46'el #' which are nonpublic occupational or - 1 ,i 00 0 0A 11 . j lTh nature. The terns does .rot indiVde 'to •resented or Itikbviqdd whitch 'are 7 of d MfhTffilit economic impact. • In addition, 43tRAA(ti l(b) 46d 3. f 't -%t-b44 4iaw provide in part that no lini*65h '41411 rOi to lbedYgt 'Oft6 anything of -mcine ly 1.0:46e tfib A:effedktoimpw 4113fai solici• 'Or accept •61* 610!1 a tif th eta irAore the Idhderstandlhg that the vote, 46t04-, !ptiAiidll*Ot , �f ttlie bef4bia1M'*p1'ce f4O14d 'tbe - ThiT:64011 litiftam-44% 'Reference is Made to , , the 4pti3ird:gildht 'di 'the Taw 1 n6ct to m1 'liere has or will be any Honorable Earl 1M. Baker Page 4 transgressions thereof but merely to provide a complete response to the question presented. In applying the above provisions of Section 3(d) of the Ethics Law which clearly would be the only section implicated in this case, we must differentiate as to whether this speaking engagement is an outside professional activity which would not be restricted by Section 3 (d) of the Ethics Law or whether the fee for the speaking engagement is an honorarium which would be prohibited by Section 3(d) of the Ethics Law. In Pancoe, Opinion 89 -011, we determined that a public official /employee was not prohibited from outside business activities provided there was not a use of the authority of office for the advancement of the public official /employee's own personal financial gain. The question in the instant matter is whether this speaking engagement is a professional business activity on your part as a political scientist, or whether the activity is a payment for a speaking engagement by you as a public official. In resolving the question, it is necessary to apply certain criteria to the proferred facts and circumstances to determine whether the payment for the speaking engagement, published work, appearance or presentation is a prohibited honorarium or allowable as non public occupational or professional. The criteria to be applied would include but not be limited to the following: the private occupation of the public official /employee, the expertise of the public official /employee in the area, the history of activity in the occupation prior to public service, the purpose for the invitation, the capacity in which the public official /employee is invited, the subject of the speech, work or presentation, the group spoken to and the composition as to members or non - members of the group, the purpose for gathering the group, the amount of the fee relative to the services performed, the source of the invitation, the event at which the speech is given, the subject matter of the speech or publisher work as compared to the normal subject matter dealt with by the occupational /professional group and any other relevant factors. In the instant matter, we must conclude by applying the above criteria that your speaking engagement is nonpublic occupational and professional in nature and hence not an honorarium. Your topic for speaking was "Legislative Priorities for Local Government ", Your presentation concerned the topic of political science /government and you hold three academic degrees in that area. You have published articles in your area of professionalism and have on prior occasions served as a speaker or panelist on such subjects. Under these circumstances, we believe that the instant speaking engagement is one in a series of activities on your part consisting of your teaching as an assistant professor, publishing and speaking in your area Of academic and professional expertise, namely political science. Honorable Earl M. Baker P age ..., r Accordingly, you may receive the $500 tee which is not prohibited, Section 3(d) o ',the Ethics Law. Lastly, the propriety of the proposed conduct has only been addressed under the Ethics Law; the appl cabili.ty r o .F any y othei statute, code, ordinance, regulation or other code `of conduct other than the Ethics Act has not been considered'in that they` do not involve an interpretation of the Ethic Aot. Specifically not addressed herein is the Legislative Code of Conduct. IV. Conclusion: A Senator of the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is a public official subject to the provisions of the Ethics Law. A Senator who has degrees in Political Science, publishes works and speaks on subjects of political science is not prohibited from receiving a fee for speaking on the subject of . legislative priorities for local government because such would be nonpublic occupational or professional in nature and not a honorarium. 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 mateiiai 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 reconside±'ation request must be received at this Commission within'` fifteen days of the mailing date of this Opinion. The personlrequesting reconsideration should present a detailed explanation setting' forth the- reasons why the Opinion requires reconsideration By the Commission, Robert W. Brown Vice Chair Commissioners Helena G. Hughes, Chair, James M. Howley and Austin M. Lee dissent.