Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout153 HeckMr. Joseph D. Heck 532 Enola Road West Fairview, PA 17025 RE: #82 -59 -C Dear Mr. Heck: The State Ethics Commission has received a complaint regarding you and a possible violation of Act 170 of 1978. The Commission has now completed its investigation into these allegations and finds a violation of Act 170. are: STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17I2O July 29, 1982 ORDER OF COMMISSION No. 153 The individual allegations and findings on which our conclusion is based I. Allegation: That as a Councilman in West Fairview Borough, you moved to accept a bid on Borough property (sale of 1970 Dodge dump truck) submitted by your brother, Albert Heck, as proposed owner /purchaser and the title to same truck upon transfer from the Borough as to you and your brother. II. Findings: 1. On December 28, 1981 the Borough of West Fairview, hereinafter, the Borough, passed a resolution to depose of Borough property, a 1970 Dodge dump truck, hereinafter, the truck. 2. This disposition was approved with the proviso that any sale would occur after invitations to bid had been advertised once, not less than ten (10) days prior to the date fixed for opening of bids. 3. The invitation for bids was made and bids were to be received until 6:30 p.m. on January 18, 1982. 4. On January 18, 1982 bids were opened and received by the Borough as follows: A. Albert Heck, $601.99 C. J. M. Reland, $500 B. A. M. Wood, $500 D. Floyd Morrow, $300 5. At the November, 1981 election you won a seat on Borough Council and you were sworn in as a Councilman on January 4, 1982 Mr. Joseph D. Heck July 29, 1982 Page 2 6. Albert Heck, the high bidder in No. 4 above is your brother. 7. At the January 18, 1982 meeting of the Borough you voted to approve the motion to approve the sale of the truck to your brother, Albert, as the highest bidder, 8. You had loaned Albert the money to bid on the truck and as security for this loan your name was entered on the Bureau of Motor Vehicles Transfer of Title forms executed by the Borough. III. Discussion: As an elected member of Borough Council you are a public official and must conform your conduct to the requirements of the Ethics Act. Section 3(c) of the Ethics Act states: (c) No public official or public employee or a member of his immediate family or any business in which the person or a member of the person's immediate family is a director, officer, owner or holder of stock exceeding 5% of the equity at fair market value of the business shall enter into any contract valued at $500 or more with a governmental body unless the contract has been awarded through an open and public process, including prior public notice and subsequent public disclosure of all proposals considered and contracts awarded. Any contract made in violation of this subsection shall be voidable by a court of competent jurisdiction if the suit is commenced within 90 days of making of the contract. 65 P.S. 403(c). In the present case an open and public process occurred relating to the sale of the truck. Thus, any problems as to your conduct might best be analyzed in light of Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act which states: (a) No public official or public employee shall use his public office or any confidential information received through his holding public office to obtain financial gain other than compensation provided by law for himself, a member of his immediate family, or a business with which he is associated. 65 P.S. 403(a). Mr. Joseph D. Heck July 29, 1982 Page 3 Section 3(a) must be read in light of Section 1 of the Ethics Act which requires that your "financial interests" must present "neither a conflict nor the appearance of a conflict with the public trust." Under the circumstances present here, you voted to sell the truck to your brother when you knew or expected to secure your loan to your brother through the 1/2 interest in the truck if Albert was the successful bidder. You alone had this knowledge and you should have abstained from voting in this matter which may be perceived as voting to award yourself the 1/2 interest in the truck or at least voting to secure your loan to your brother. The Ethics Act is violated where you used your public office through your vote to further your own personal financial interests. In this case, however, the Borough, in fact, got the best price for the truck, and the sale process was an open and public one. IV. Conclusion: In the future, where you have such a financial interest in the subject of a Borough vote or decision you should refrain from voting to avoid violating the Ethics Act or creating the appearance that your financial interests violate the public trust. If you have any questions regarding your duties and obligations under the Ethics Act you should address them to your solicitor or the State Ethics Commission in the final analysis. Any questions should be resolved in favor of exercising caution in your role as a public official. Although we find a violation of the Ethics Act in these circumstances, the Commission will take no further action. Our files in this case will remain confidential in accordance with Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 P.S. 408(a). 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 fctual findings. During this 15 -day period, no one, including the Respondent unless he waives his right to challenge this Order, may violate this confidentiality by releasing, discussing or ciculating this Order. Any person who violates the confidentiality of a Commission proceeding is guilty to a misdemeanor and shall be fined not more than $1000 or imprisoned for not more than one year or both, see 65 P.S. 409(e). PJS /rdp Sincerely, /J `iaui' i /$mith Chairman/