HomeMy WebLinkAbout21 SmeltzMr. David R. Smeltz
President,
Danville Area School Board
R. D. #3
Danville, PA 17821
Re: Complaint #80 -44 (1 -2)
Dear Mr. Smeltz:
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120
ORDER OF THE COUNISSION
No. 21
January 29, 1981
#80 -44 -C (1 -2)
The State Ethics Commission has received a complaint
regarding you and possible violations of Act 170 of 1978.
You were previously advised of this by our letter of Decem-
ber 8, 1980. The Commission has now completed its investi-
gation into these allegations and finds that an appearance
of a conflict of interest exists.
The individual allegation and finding on which our
conclusion is based is:
A. Allegation: That as an elected School -Board Member
you voted on questions involving the awarding of
Transportation contracts to Charles Cooper and
Paul Bogart while serving as a part -time bus
driver for Cooper and /or Bogart.
B. Findings:
1. You do work as a part -time, school -bus driver
for Cooper and Bogart.
2. You serve as an elected member of the Danville
School District.
3. Cooper and Bogart have contracts to provide bus
service to the Danville School District.
4. You noted to approve these contracts or amendments
thereto in your capacity as a School -Board Member.
o?/
David R. Smeltz
January 29, 19
Page Z -
#80 -44 -C (1 -2)
C. Discussion: The Ethics Act does not preclude an elected
official from having employment other than his official
post. Nor does the Ethics Act totally preclude an indi-
vidual serving as a public official from contracting
with the governmental body with which he serves.
Indeed, Section 3(c) of the Ethics Act merely requires
that a public official contracting with his governmental
body in an amount over $500.00 must do so in an open and
public manner. Consequently, if we were simply dealing with
a contract between Mr. Smeltz and the Danville School District,
these clear restrictions would be met.
However, the question raised here is more complicated.
Specifically, we deal here with two questions: (1) whether
an elected official may sub - contract with the prime contractor
doing business with the official's governmental body and (2)
whether the public official may play a role in voting on or
recommending that the prime contract be awarded.
The Commission has been faced with these questions in a
similar context in Sowers, 80 -050, issued October 14, 1980.
There a Township Supervisor sought an opinion as to whether
he could vote or should abstain as to reviewing a developer's
plans where the Supervisor might contract with the developer
to do grading work for the development. The Commission con-
cluded that such a contract between the Supervisor and de-
veloper was not prohibited by the Ethics Act but that certain
requirements must be imposed in order to avoid the "appearance
of a conflict of interest" between the Supervisor in his
capacity as grading- contractor. The concepts contained in
Sowers are reviewed below and modified to reflect the present
case.
Specifically, you must adhere to following concepts,
which hold that in future employment relationships with con-
tractors with the School District you must:
(1) Not use your official position to obtain such employment;
(2) Not utilize confidential information gained in your
official capacity to secure such employment;
(3) Refrain from voting on a contract or acceptance of a
bid' where you will seek, have been asked or can reasonably
and legitimately anticipate being asked to perform work
for the contractor; this includes refraining from
recommending or promoting the contractor to influence
the vote of others.
David R. Smelt..
January 29, 1981
Page -3-
#80 -44 -C (1 -2)
(4) Refrain from voting or influencing other officials
on matters related to the contractor for whom you
obtain /secure work where you as an elected official
may be asked to vote on these matters which arise after
you have obtained /secured such work, except for voting
on ministerial matters such as the payment of monthly
bills as required by law or the contract;
(5) Make public your relationship with the contractor
or acquired with the contractor and the reasons for
your abstention as required by (3) and (4) immediately
above. Public disclosure of employment by the con-
tractor should be made at the next public meeting of
the School Board and should be made a part of the
minutes of that meeting.
D. Conclusion: Voting as a School -Board Member on
awarding contracts to bus contractors for whom you
work constitutes an appearance of a conflict of
interest between your offical position and your
private role. We understand that the Ethics Act is
relatively recent and its requirements not entirely
disseminated. In fact, our ruling in Sowers, for
example, on which we rely here was issued only as
of October 14, 1980.
Accordingly, we make this Order prospective only
and find that your future conduct as a public official
should be governed by the standards outlined above in
Nos. 1 - 5.
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.
PJS / j c
Sincerely,
Paul J Smith
Chairman