HomeMy WebLinkAbout33 MoranLawrence Moran, Esquire
Borough Solicitor
Scranton Electric Building
Scranton, PA 18503
Re: Complaint x'81 -09 -C
Dear Mr. Moran:
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120
ORDER OF THE COMMISSION
April 21, 1981
No. 33
Jft81 -09 -C
The State Ethics Commission has received a complaint
regarding your conduct 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:
I. A. Allegation - That you, with members of the Borough
Council of Mayfield used your power to conspire with long-
time political comrade for the purpose of enriching that
person by encouraging him to confiscate public lands.
B. Finding - Neither you nor the Borough Council have
taken any 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.
Lawrence Moran, Esq.
April 21, 1981
Page -2-
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.
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 view-
point 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.
III. A. Allegation - That you, as Solicitor of the Borough
of Mayfield, have betrayed the public -at -large because you
secretly conspired with this property owner for the purpose
of taking this land for his own, and that in this process
you 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
Sincerely,
aul Smith
Chairman