Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout19 WitmyerSTATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 ORDER OF THE COMMISSION January 29, 1981 No. 19 Mr. James G. Witmyer, Vice- Chairman, Mr. J. Lloyd Rohrer, Vice - Chairman, Mr. Richard I. Hoffer, Secretary - Treasurer, 1979, Warwick Township 1542 E. Newport Road Lititz, PA 17543 Re: Complaint Nos. 80- 31(8 -8) Witmyer; 80- 30(7- 8).Rohrer; and 80- 27(4 -8) Hoffer Dear Messrs. Witmyer, Rohrer and Hoffer: The State Ethics Commission has received a complaint regarding you and possible violations of the Ethics Act, Act 170 of 1978. You were previously advised of this by our letter of November 4, 1980. The Commission has now com- pleted its investigation into these allegations and finds that in some respects an appearance of a conflict of in- terest existed as to activities in 1978 and 1979. The individual allegation and findings on which our conclusion is based is: A. Allegation: That Warwick Township Supervisors Witmyer and Rohrer accepted gifts of $750 from 1976 through 1979 from Mr. Richard I. Hoffer and did not report this on their Financial Interest Statements. B. Findings: 1. Mr. Witmyer and Mr. Rohrer were elected as Super- visors in Warwick Township in 1976 and presently serve in those offices. 2. Mr. Witmyer and Mr. Rohrer did receive $750 from Mr. Hoffer each year from 1976 to 1979. 3. Mr. Hoffer was Secretary - Treasurer (1979) of the Township. 4. As Secretary - Treasurer, Mr. Hoffer was paid approxi- mately $3,750 per year as established by the Township Auditors. titbsrs. ti nonrer Hotter January 29, 198_ Page -2- 5. Mr. Hoffer gave Mr. Witmyer and Mr. Rohrer $750.00 each in recognition of the amount of time they spend on Township business. 6. Mr. Hoffer has provided this amount ($750.00) to other Supervisors, without distinction as to political party or any understanding that any vote to appoint or re- appoint Mr. Hoffer as Secretary- Treasurer or other official action of Mr. Witmyer and /or Mr. Rohrer was to be influenced thereby. 7. Mr. Witmyer reported that he had received "income" from Mr. Hoffer on his Financial Interest Statement filed covering the calendar year 1979. This report did not indicate the amount or circumstances of this "income ". 8. Mr. Rohrer did not report any money received from Mr. Hoffer on his Financial Interest Statement covering the calendar year 1979. 9. Neither Mr. Witmyer nor Mr. Rohrer received any money from Mr. Hoffer during the calendar year 1980. C. Discussion: Our investigation has failed to reveal any actual violation of the Ethics Act in relation to the "gifts" given by Mr. Hoffer to Mr. Witmyer or Mr. Rohrer. There is, in particular, no evidence that this was given with the understanding that the vote, official action or judgment of either Mr. Witmyer or Mr. Rohrer was to be influenced thereby. Thus, no violation of Section 3(b) of the Ethics Act, per se, exists. However, the Commission must address these cases with a view to what might constitute an appearance of a conflict of interest, as well. Reviewed in the 1ight, we must conclude that the activity of Mr. Hoffer in 1 the $750.00 gifts in 1978 and 1979 constitute an appearance of a conflict of interest. The public might well perceive this exchange as one designed to secure the favor of the Supervisors on the appointment or re- appointment of Mr. Hoffer as Secretary- - Treasurer. This exchange would not have occurred, but for the fact that Mr. Witmyer and Mr. Rohrer were Supervisors and the public's impression that such "gifts" appear to be improper is easily apparent. Indeed, Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act prohibits a public official from using his office to secure financial gain beyond the compensation allowed by law. Using the analysis outlined above, it appears that Supervisors Witmyer and Rohrer having received this "gift" only because they hold office, passively received financial gain above and beyond the compensation allowed by law by virtue of their office. On this basis, an appearance of an activity prohibited by the Ethics Act can be found. lessrs. Witmyer_ Rohrer & Hoffer January 29, 19 Page 3 _ In any event, the $750.00 should have been reported on the Financial Interest Statements of these officials. Mr. Witmyer incorrectly reported this as "income" rather than a "gift ". This is significant because the main purpose of the Act in requiring disclosure of "gifts" was to identify the source, amount and circumstances of the gift. Mr. Rohrer did not report this amount at all. These deficiencies should be corrected. Finally we note that as to "gifts" received or given prior to January 1, 1979, the general effective date of the Ethics Act, we have no jurisdiction to review these allegations. D. Conclusion: An appearance of the existence of a prohibited activity or conflict of interest exists in that Mr. Hoffer because of the fact that they serve in public office, gave Mr. Witmyer and Mr. Rohrer $750.00 each while serving as elected Supervisors in Warwick Township, which amount was beyond the amount authorized them by law. There is no violation of the Ethics Act, per se, since this amount was not given or accepted with the understanding that the official vote, action, etc. of Mr. Witmyer and /or Mr. Rohrer was to be influenced thereby. Because this practice has ceased as of 1980, no penalties should be imposed. Mr. Rohrer and Mr. Witmyer should, however, amend their Financial Interest Statements to disclose receipt of this amount as a gift and identify the source, amount and circumstances of the gift. This practice should not be be re- instituted. All files in this case will remain confidential. However, this Order is final and will become available as a public document within 15 days unless you file documentation with the Commission which justifies reconsideration and /or challenges pertinent factual findings made herein. Sincerely yours, PJS /jc �/ aul J. 1th Chairma