HomeMy WebLinkAbout94-011 ConfidentialI. ISSUE:
DATE DECIDED:
DATE MAILED:
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120
OPINION OF THE COMMISSION
Before: James M. Howley, Chair
Daneen E. Reese, Vice Chair
Roy W. Wilt
Austin M. Lee
Allan M. Kluger
John R. Showers
12/16/94
12/28/94
II. FACTUAL BASIS FOR DETERMINATION:
94 -011
Re: Former Public Official; Section 3(g); Executive -Level State
Employee; Section 3(i); Secretary; A; Employment, Employer's
Clients.
This Opinion is issued in response to your confidential
advisory request on November 22, 1994.
Whether the Public Official and Employee Ethics Law presents
any restrictions or prohibition upon the employment of the
Secretary of A following termination of service.
You seek a Confidential Opinion regarding your plans for
employment following completion of your government service. You
are an employee in A since 1987. From that date to 1991, you
served as an Associate Director of B and, beginning in 1988, as
Executive Deputy Secretary of A wherein you oversaw the agency's
administrative functions and several of its program areas. In
1991, you were appointed as Secretary of A and as Executive
Director of B wherein you continue to serve to date.
As Secretary of A you oversee the development in that area
Confidential Opinion, 94 -011
December 28, 1994
Page 2
with your department administering programs to provide C. Your
department also includes D a unit that E. Other programs in the
department include F. As Secretary of A you chair several boards
of various authorities administered by A and several boards like G
that approve project funding based on staff recommendations. In
other cases, like H, the board's function is advisory in nature.
The core function of A is to I.
You, as Secretary, have been active in participating in such
activities, as for example, J to locate a major bank - office
operation in Pennsylvania. In many instances, the A provides
financing without any active participation on your part. For
example, you have oversight responsibilities including signing
commitment letters on loans packaged by the A staff and other
organizations without any involvement in that process. In
addition, you serve as Executive Director of the B and in that
capacity you oversee a staff supporting an advisory board that
meets quarterly and carries out most of its work through committees
or task forces assigned to develop policy recommendations on
specific issues. As Secretary of A you are also a board member of
various authorities not administered by the department which
include K. While other employees of the department have generally
represented you at these board meetings, such employees do vote and
express your positions.
After noting that you have carried out your duties in accord
with the Governor's Code of Conduct, you advise that you intend to
leave state government for employment in the private sector with L,
a private commercial bank. The bank has had no relationship with
you as Secretary of A and you are not aware of any contact with
that bank during your tenure with the department.
You inquire as to what restrictions would apply to your
prospective employment with L vis -a -vis contacts with the A, what
restrictions would apply to contact with other agencies or
authorities of the state government and lastly, what restrictions
would apply to dealings with businesses that have received
financing or financing offers from the A.
You appeared at the executive session and raised various
issues as to the applicability of Section 3(i) of the Ethics Law.
In particular, you seek guidance not as to your employment by L but
with its business clients, given that you may have had
relationships with some of those businesses while in the A. You
question how the restrictions of Section 3(i) would apply to your
dealings with such clients.
Since you as Secretary of A have had a wide range of dealings
with businesses, you ask whether Section 3(i) is meant to extend to
Confidential Opinion, 94 -011
December 28, 1994
Page 3
every business that you have had dealings with during your tenure.
You raise this issue because such businesses might be interested in
a business relationship with your new employer. Although you would
not directly receive compensation from any such client other than
your employer, your level of compensation will depend upon the
business transactions that you have in your dealings with clients
of your employer.
As to the Section 3(i) prohibition against acting in a
representative capacity, you ask whether the restriction is
intended to be limited to scenarios of representing clients of your
employer before a governmental agency or is broader so as to
encompass activities of working with such clients for your new
employer. You acknowledge that if a business approached you
directly and retained you to advise them on a matter, such would be
prohibited by Section 3(i). However, if that business approached
your employer's branch office so that you would have no connection
and receive no compensation, you would have no involvement with
that business so as to be in compliance with Section 3 (i) . You
seek to know the parameters of the allowable scope of your
involvement with such business clients of your employer.
In your position of Secretary of A, there are many contacts,
direct or indirect, with businesses. Although the word "active" in
Section 3(i) must be ascribed some meaning, the intention of the
Ethics Law is not to be so restrictive that a former executive -
level State employee can have no dealings, after termination of
governmental service, with businesses "touched by" A. The effect
of such an interpretation, you submit, would be to construe
"active" to mean any participation with such businesses. You
conclude that the modifying word "active" would have no meaning so
that the prohibition of Section 3(i) would extend to hundreds of
businesses that have had some contact with A. In this regard, you
cite the example of G which allows businesses to apply for loans.
Although A is Chairman of G, the applying businesses work with
staff which makes recommendations that are voted upon by the board
without the vote of A who only votes if there is a tie followed by
the signing of a commitment letter.
In summary, you seek guidance as to the meaning of the term
"act in a representative capacity" and "actively participate" in
the context of your new employment vis -a -vis employer clients which
are businesses that you had involvement while Secretary of A.
III. DISCUSSION:
As Secretary for A, you are a "public official" within the
definition of that term as set forth in the Public Official and
Employee Ethics Law and the Regulations of this Commission. 65
Confidential Opinion, 94 -011
December 28, 1994
Page 4
P.S. §402; 51 Pa. Code §11.1.
In addition, you are an executive -level state employee as that
term is defined under the Ethics Law, and hence you are subject to
the requirements of Section 3(i) of the Ethics Law, infra.
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 of 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.
"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.
Section 3(a) of the Ethics Law provides:
Section 3. Restricted Activities.
Confidential Opinion, 94 -011
December 28, 1994
Page 5
(a) No public official or public
employee shall engage in conduct that
constitutes a conflict of interest.
Under Section 3(a) of the Ethics Law quoted above, a public
official /employee may not use the authority of public office/
employment or confidential information received by holding such a
public position for the private pecuniary benefit of himself, a
member of his immediate family, or business with which he or a
member of his immediate family is associated.
In applying Section 3(a) of the Ethics Law to the proffered
facts, Section 3(a) would prohibit you from using the position or
emoluments of your public position or confidential information to
advance an opportunity of private employment with L. Once again,
it is not suggested that you have engaged in such conduct and the
foregoing is provided to give a complete response to your inquiry.
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 and no public official /employee shall
solicit or accept anything of monetary value based upon the
understanding that the vote, official action, or judgement of the
public official /employee would be influenced thereby. Reference is
made to these provisions of the law not to imply that there has
been or will be any transgression thereof but merely to provide a
complete response to the question presented.
Upon termination of public service, you would become a "former
public official" subject to Section 3(g) of the Public Official and
Employee Ethics Law. Section 3(g) of the Ethics Act provides that:
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.
Initially, to answer your request the governmental body with
which you were associated while working with A must be identified.
Then, the scope of the prohibitions associated with the concept
and term of "representation" must be reviewed.
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:
Confidential Opinion, 94 -011
December 28, 1994
Page 6
Section 2. Definitions.
"Governmental body with which a public
official or public employee is or has been
associated." The governmental body within
State government or a political subdivision
by which the public official or employee is or
has been employed or to which the public
official or employee is or has been appointed
or elected and subdivisions and offices within
that governmental body.
In applying the above definition to the instant matter, we
must conclude that the governmental body with which you were
associated upon termination of public service would be A, B, G, H,
K and any other boards or commissions to which you were a member or
had involvement, all hereinafter collectively referred to as "the
Agencies." 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.
Thus, in Sirolli, Opinion 90 -006, we found that a former Division
Director of the Department of Public Welfare (DPW) was not merely
restricted to the particular Division as was contended but was in
fact restricted to all of DPW regarding the one year representation
restriction. Similarly in Sharp, Opinion 90- 009 -R, it was
determined that a former legislative assistant to a state senator
was not merely restricted to that particular senator but to the
entire Senate as his former governmental body.
Therefore, within the first year after termination of service
with A, Section 3(g) of the Ethics Law would apply and restrict
representation of persons or new employers vis -a -vis the Agencies.
It is noted that Act 9 of 1989 significantly broadened the
definition of the term "governmental body with which a public
official or public employee is or has been associated." It was the
specific intent of the General Assembly to define the above term so
that it was not merely limited to the area where a public
official /employee had influence or control but extended to the
entire governmental body with which the public official /employee
was associated. The foregoing intent is reflected in the
legislative debate relative to the amendatory language for the
above term:
We sought to make particularly clear that
when we are prohibiting for 1 year that
revolving -door kind of conduct, we are dealing
not only with a particular subdivision of an
agency or a local government but the entire
unit..." Legislative Journal of House, 1989
Confidential Opinion, 94 -011
December 28, 1994
Page 7
Session, No. 15 at 290, 291.
Therefore, since the Ethics Law must be construed to ascertain
and effectuate the intent of the General Assembly under 1 Pa.
C.S.A. §1901, it is clear that the governmental body with which you
were associated is the Agencies.
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 on the
type of employment in which a person may engage, following
departure from their 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 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 restriction against such
"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 Popovich, Opinion 89 -005, we 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
by or contain the name of the former public
official /employee;
Confidential Opinion, 94 -011
December 28, 1994
Page 8
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.
We have 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 governmental body
constitutes an attempt to influence the former governmental body.
In Shay, Opinion 91 -012, we held that Section 3(g) would prohibit
the inclusion of the name of a former public official /public
employee on invoices submitted by his new employer to the former
governmental body, even though the invoices pertained to a contract
which existed prior to termination of public service. Therefore,
within the first year after termination of service, you should not
engage in the type of activity outlined above.
You may assist in the preparation of any documents presented
to the Agencies. However, you may not be identified on documents
submitted to the Agencies. You may also counsel any person
regarding that person's appearance before the Agencies. Once
again, however, the activity in this respect should not be revealed
to the Agencies. Of course, any ban under the Ethics Law would not
prohibit or preclude the making of general informational inquiries
of the Agencies 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.
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 Confidential Opinion 93 -005, we held that Section 3(g)
precludes a former public official /employee from providing
consulting services to his former governmental body for a period of
one year after termination of service in that the prohibition
against representing a person includes the former public
official /employee representing himself.
Section 3(i) of the Ethics Law provides:
Confidential Opinion, 94 -011
December 28, 1994
Page 9
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 or a
promise of a grant or loan of money from the
Commonwealth to the business or corporation
recruited or induced to expand.
As to Section 3(i) of the Ethics Law, you are subject to that
provision of law since you are an executive -level state employee.
However, Section 3(i) would not restrict you from employment with
L provided you did not actively participate in recruiting or
inducing L to open a new facility or branch in the Commonwealth or
actively participate in inducing L to expand an existing plant or
facility that was accomplished by a grant or loan of money or a
promise of a grant or loan of money from the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania to L.
Since you have affirmatively represented that you have not had
any involvement with L while serving as Secretary of A, you are
advised that Section 3(i) of the Ethics Law does not restrict or
prohibit your employment with L. Our decision comports with
Confidential Opinion, 91 -002 wherein we held that Section 3(i) did
not prohibit a former executive -level State employee similarly
situated from proposed employment based upon the submitted facts.
Your inquiry extends beyond the employment by L to activities
on your part with your employer's clients when those clients are
businesses with which you may have had dealings while Secretary of
A. This is the first instance that we have been required to
interpret Section 3(i) of Act 9 of 1989 (formerly Section 3(g) of
Act 170 of 1978) to such a significant degree. We commend you for
bringing this important issue before the Commission. Our analysis
as to your inquiry shall necessarily be general because your
inquiry is primarily generalized. Our general commentary, however,
should not be interpreted to imply that you would engage in conduct
Confidential Opinion, 94 -011
December 28, 1994
Page 10
violative of Section 3(i). We provide such commentary because it
is a function of this Commission to give guidance through advisory
opinions as to all public officials and public employees subject to
the Ethics Law, 65 P.S. §401.
It is for the purpose of guiding executive -level State
employees subject to Section 3(i) that we note that according to
the legislative debate, Section 3(i) was designed to: "eliminate
any strong potential for a conflict of interest by anyone in the
high levels of government where they may negotiate deals which
profit themselves" and was "aimed at the high -level executive
employees prohibiting the post - employment for two years with those
large businesses or corporations with which they have had
involvement and discretionary power in soliciting the Commonwealth
and who stand to gain from a grant or loan . . ." (Comments of the
Honorable Representative Pitts, who offered the amendment to House
bill No. 198 to include this particular Section in Act 170 of 1978,
Legislative Journal - House , April 26, 1977 at 640.
Our inquiry must focus upon the key phraseology of Section
3(i) which provides that a former executive -level State employee
may not be ". . . employed by, receive compensation from, assist or
act in a representative capacity for a business or corporation that
he actively participates . . . ".
Preliminarily, we note that the Ethics Law is remedial
legislation and therefore is to be liberally construed. Phillips
v. State Ethics Com'n, 79 Pa. Commw. 491, 470 A.2d 659 (1984).
Our analysis must be guided by the rules of statutory
construction. The Statutory Construction Act of 1972 provides, in
pertinent part:
§ Words and phrases
(a) Words and phrases shall be construed according
to rules of grammar and according to their common and
approved usage; but technical words and phrases and such
others as have acquired a peculiar and appropriate
meaning or are defined in this part, shall be construed
according to such peculiar and appropriate meaning or
definition.
(b) General words shall be construed to take their
meanings and be restricted by preceding particular words.
1 Pa.C.S. §1903.
See also 1 Pa.C.S.A §1921, §1922, §1928(c).
We also are mindful of 1 Pa.C.S.A §1939 regarding the use of
Confidential Opinion, 94 -011
December 28, 1994
Page 11
(legislative) comments and reports, which we have quoted in part
above. We have reviewed the legislative debate and have found no
commentary on the novel issues raised in this case.
We have the benefit of a definition of the word "represent" in
the Ethics Law:
"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.
65 P.S. §402. The statute, however, is silent as to definitions of
the terms "act," "assist," and "actively participates."
In order to interpret the pertinent key words and phrases of
Section 3 (i) , we are relegated to utilizing Black's Law Dictionary,
(5th Edition) :
Act, n. Denotes external manifestation of actor's will.
Restatement, Second, Torts § 2. Expression of will or
purpose, carries idea of performance; primarily that
which is done or doing; exercise of power, or effect of
which power exerted is cause; a performance; a deed. In
its most general sense, this noun signifies something
done voluntarily by a person; the exercise of an
individual's power; an effect produced in the external
world by an exercise of the power of a person
objectively, prompted by intention, and proximately
caused by a motion of the will. In a more technical
sense, it means something done voluntarily by a person,
and of such a nature that certain legal consequences
attach to it. . . .
Active. That is in action; that demands action; actually
subsisting; the opposite of passive. An active debt is
one which draws interest. An active trust is a
confidence connected with a duty. An active use is a
present legal estate.
aid; succor; lend countenance or
participate in as an auxiliary. To
in the complete accomplishment of an
intended to be effected by those
Assist. To help;
encouragement to;
contribute effort
ultimate purpose
engaged.
Participate. To receive or have a part or share of; to
Confidential Opinion, 94 -011
December 28, 1994
Page 12
partake of; experience in common with others; to have or
enjoy a part or share in common with others. To partake,
as to "participate" in a discussion, or in a pension or
profit sharing plan. To take equal shares and
proportions; to share or divide, as to participate in an
estate. To take as tenants in common.
It is noted that the Black Law's Dictionary (4th edition)
definition of "participate" was cited with approval by the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Schaefer v. Hilton, 473 Pa. 237, 373
A.2d 1350 (1977).
In the context of Section 3(i), we conclude that the
prohibition against "assist[ing]" such a business or corporation is
to be interpreted broadly, and would preclude giving any sort of
help or aid to that entity.
As for the phrase, "act in a representative capacity," given
that the statutory definition of "represent" includes the words,
"to act," we see no basis for distinguishing the meaning of this
phrase from the term "represent" as defined in the Ethics Law.
As for the terms "actively participates" and "actively
participated," the word "actively" modifies the words
"participates" and "participated," signifying that mere
participation in a passive sense would not transgress Section 3 (i) .
Thus, the terms "actively participates" and "actively participated"
would mean to take part through an actual exercise of power or
discretion, and would not include mere presence or passive
involvement through the non - discretionary performance of a
perfunctory function. We note that in the context of criminal law,
in Com. v. Moore, 389 Pa. Super. 473, 567 A.2d 701 (1989) and cases
cited therein, the Pennsylvania Courts have ruled that for a public
defender to take an "active part" at a line -up -- thereby meeting
the suspect's right to counsel even though the public defender does
not actually represent him -- the public defender must do more than
merely be present at the line -up, for example: receive copies of
witness descriptions; consult with the suspect; voice objections
and require substitutions for the line -up; interview participants
in the line -up and designate their positions; and make notes during
the line -up.
It is clear to us that although Section 3(i) is intended to
apply to a very small group consisting of individual, former
executive -level State employees, it has a very broad application as
to the conduct which it prohibits when such individuals actively
participate in recruiting or inducing a business /corporation to
open or expand via a grant /loan from the Commonwealth to such
business /corporation. This is in sharp contrast to Section 3(g)
which broadly applies to all former public officials /employees but
Confidential Opinion, 94 -011
December 28, 1994
Page 13
narrowly restricts them to representation only before their former
governmental body.
We shall now consider the novel issue which you have raised,
concerning the applicability of Section 3(i) as to your work for
your prospective private employer vis -a -vis business clients with
which you had dealings while Secretary of A. We conclude that
insofar as all of the other conditions for applying Section 3(i)
are met, its applicability is unaffected by the status of such a
business as a client or customer of the former executive -level
State employee's private employer. The very services which,
pursuant to Section 3(i), indisputably cannot be provided directly
to such a business previously recruited or induced via Commonwealth
funds, also cannot be provided indirectly through the veil of a
separate entity. Any other interpretation would exalt form over
substance and would completely defeat the purpose of Section 3(i).
Contrary to the stated purpose of the Ethics Law, such an
interpretation we believe would not "strengthen the faith and
confidence of the people of the State in their government," but
would convey an impression that the clear intent and purpose of
this Section has been circumvented and undermined.
In reaching our holding on this issue, we do not question your
personal integrity or the integrity of those involved in your
particular circumstances. Nevertheless, we are cognizant that our
decision on this issue will set a precedent which will be invoked
by others.
As to your inquiry concerning a business which would approach
your employer's branch office so that you would have no connection
with that business and receive no compensation, you are correct
that you would,have no current involvement with that business and
hence would be in compliance with Section 3(i).
To the extent that you did actively participate in your
capacity as Secretary of A to recruit /induce via Commonwealth funds
within the parameters of Section 3(i), such involvement would be-
prohibited. Thus, the prohibition of Section 3(i) is not limited
to mere employment or representation before some other entity but
would extend to your dealings with those businesses as a client of
your new employer since such activity would be "assist[ance]."
However, we restate that this prohibition, while being all -
encompassing, is limited to only those companies from which there
was (1) an executive -level State employee who (2) actively
participated in (3) recruiting /inducing to open or expand in
Pennsylvania with (4) a grant /loan of Commonwealth funds or the
promise of same. All of the above four conditions must be met in
order for the prohibition of Section 3(i) to apply.
You are advised that Section 3(i) would not prohibit your
Confidential Opinion, 94 -011
December 28, 1994
Page 14
involvement with businesses that received G loans because you were
not active in your participation as to loans that were approved by
the board without your vote. However, if the board were deadlocked
on any application with you voting to break the tie, such action
would be active participation in that the loan would not be
approved but for your action. As to those businesses, you would be
prohibited by Section 3(i) in being employed, receiving
compensation, assisting or acting in a representative capacity.
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
involve an interpretation of the Ethics Law. Specifically not
addressed is the applicability of the Governor's Code of Conduct.
IV. CONCLUSION:
A cabinet secretary is to be considered a "public official"
and an 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
private employment based upon the assumption that he did not
actively participate in inducing or recruiting said company to open
or expand a facility or branch through a grant or loan of money or
a promise of a grant or loan of money from the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. The interpretation and application of Section 3(i)
of the Ethics Law as noted above must be followed. Upon
termination of service the secretary would become a "former public
official" subject to Section 3(g) of the Ethics Law. The former
governmental body is the Department and all other boards and
commissions with which the secretary served or had involvement.
The restrictions as to representation outlined above must be
observed. 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.
such.
This letter is a public record and will be made available as
Finally, any person may request the Commission to reconsider
Confidential Opinion, 94 -011
December 28, 1994
Page 15
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 Commission,
lHw�
James M.
Chair