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/