HomeMy WebLinkAbout30 Mayfield Borough CouncilRe: Complaint #81 -08 -C
Dear Gentlemen:
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120
ORDER OF THE COMMISSION
No. 30
March 25, 1981
Mayfield Borough Council
739 Penn Avenue
Mayfield, PA 18433
I. A. Allegation - That members
Mayfield used their power
political comrade for the
person by encouraging him
lands.
#81 -08 -C
The State Ethics Commission has received a complaint
regarding your Council and possible violations of Act 170 of
1978. The Commission has now completed its investigation
into these allegations and finds no violation of Act 170 in
any of the circumstances presented.
The individual allegations and findings on which our
conclusion is based are as follows:
of the Borough Council of
to conspire with long -time
purpose of enriching that
to confiscate public
B. Finding - The Borough Council has taken no action
to convey the property in question to any person.
The Borough may not even be the rightful owner
of the property. The property does not appear
as an ordained public - thoroughfare, or as the
property of the Borough.
C. Conclusion - These facts do not support any
finding that the provisions of Act 170 have
been violated.
II. A. Allegation - That the property owner made a
covert agreement with the Mayor of Mayfield
to install a "no parking" sign on this public
land while all other motorists would be ticketed
for illegal parking.
3�
Mayfield Borough Council
March 25, 1981
Page -2-
III. A. Allegation - That the Borough of Mayfield has
betrayed the public -at -large because they secretly
conspired with this property owner for the purpose
of taking this land for his own, and that in this
process they used bad faith and demonstrated total
disregard for the best interests of the aged and
handicapped in the neighborhood.
B. Finding - This matter was subject of public
protest and discussion. No public land was
transferred to private interests.
C. Conclusion - These facts do not support any
finding that the provisions of Act 170 have
been violated.
All files in this case will remain confidential except'
that this Order will be available as a public document.
PJS / j c
B. Finding - A "no parking" sign has been installed
at the property in question. It was not done
covertly, but was requested by a private citizen
for a proper reason, and the Borough Council
agreed with that private citizen's viewpoint
and was of the opinion that the sign was warranted
and thus approved the installation of said sign.
C. Conclusion - These facts do not support any finding
that the provisions of Act 170 have been violated.
cc: Lawrence Moran, Esquire
Sincerely,
ul J. Smith
Chairman