HomeMy WebLinkAbout154 HatchardMr. George Hatchard
c/o Mr. Daniel Corvelyn
712 Monroe Street
Stroudsburg, PA 18360
RE: 80 -23 -C
Dear Mr. Hatchard:
are:
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120
July 29, 1982
ORDER OF THE COMMISSION
No, 154
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.
The individual allegations and findings on which our conclusion is based
I. Allegation:
1. That you, as Chairman of Pocono Mountain Municipal Airport Authority,
appointed yourself as Inspecting Engineer on runway construction.
2. That you used your position as Authority Chairman to secure the
personal gain described in No. 1 above.
II. Findings:
1. You served as Chairman of the Pocono Mountain Municipal Airport
Authority, hereinafter, the Authority. The Authority operates the Mount
Pocono Airport, hereinafter, the Airport.
2. You are not compensated for serving the Authority.
3. You are a professional engineer and are associated with Woodlane
Engineering Inc. as its president.
4. The Authority contracted with Thomas M. Durkin and Sons Inc. for the
reconstruction of runway 13/31 at the Airport and the engineers on this
project were L. R. Kimball Engineers.
5. Kimball Engineers sub - contracted with Woodlane to perform resident
engineering /inspecting services on this runway project.
Mr. George Hatchard
July 29, 1982
Page 2
a. This sub - contract was approved by the Federal Aviation Admini-
stration and the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation.
b. Your resume and credentials were submitted and approved as the Wood -
lane engineer who would actually operate as resident inspector.
c. The compensation under this sub - contract was to be $12,500 versus the
$51,000 and $33,000 proposals the Authority had received from two other engi-
neering firms.
d. There was no public bid process involved in the award or creation of
this sub - contract agreement.
e. You participated in the Authority's decisions relating to this sub-
contract.
f. This project and therefore your participation as resident engineer/
inspector ended on or about August 20, 1980.
III. Discussion: At one point in time the question of whether municipal
authorities were generally subject to the Ethics Act was an open one being
litigated in the courts. As of February 10, 1981, however, when the Common-
wealth Court issued its ruling in Forney v. State Ethics Commission, 425 A.2d
66, this issue was resolved. Municipal authorities were generally held to be
agencies of the Commonwealth and paid members of such authorities were held to
be "public officials" subject to the Ethics Act. The initial question to be
answered in your case, however, is whether unpaid members of such authorities
are similarly subject to the Ethics Act so that their conduct would be subject
to the requirement of the Ethics Act.
To answer this question we review the definition of "public official" in
the Act which states:
"Public official." Any elected or appointed
official in the Executive, Legislative or Judicial
Branch of the State or any political subdivision
thereof, provided that it shall not include members of
advisory boards that have no authority to expend public
funds other than reimbursement for personal expense, or
to otherwise exercise the power of the State or any
political subdivision thereof. "Public official" shall
not include any appointed official who receives no
compensation other than reimbursement for actual
expenses. 65 P.S. 402
Mr. George Hatchard
July 29, 1982
Page 3
While appointed, non - compensated persons might be said to be clearly
excluded from coverage, the definition must also be reviewed in light of the
recent ruling in Snider v. Thornburgh, Pa. , 436 A.2d 593 (1981).
In that ruling, issued September 29, 1981, the Supreme Court appeared to alter
the definition of "public official" by removing the exclusion relating to
appointed, non- compensated persons. While this case related to school board
directors, it may affect the scope of the entire definition of "public
official" by including non - compensated appointed persons previously excluded
from the Ethics Act's definition of that term. The State Ethics Commission is
currently ilssessing the impact of this ruling and if appointed, non -
compensated persons other than school directors are to be affected by this
decision, regulations will be promulgated to implement this portion of the
Snider ruling.
In any event, even assuming that persons such as unpaid authority members
previously excluded from the "public official" definition as it stood prior to
the September 29, 1981 Snider ruling will eventually, by regulations, be held
within the purview of this definition, we are unwilling to apply this Snider
ruling retroactively to apply to and to affect your conduct during 1979 -1980.
During this period you were not covered by the Ethics Act and we will not
review or judge your conduct at this point when such action /conduct was under-
taken at a point in time when your inclusion within the definition of "public
official" was not clear.
IV. Conclusion: The State Ethics Commission will take no further action in
the matter because it has now been determined that you were not subject to the
Ethics Act at the time the conduct /action in question occurred. We will not
apply this subsequent court ruling retroactively. This conclusion is not meant
to condone or condemn your conduct. Should you clearly be within the defini-
tion of "public official" as established by the Ethics Act or existing or
future regulations of the State Ethics Commission and should you face a
similar situation in the future, you should solicit the advice of the State
Ethics Commission in relation to conforming your conduct to the requirements
of the Ethics Act.
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 factual findings. During this 15 -day period, no one,
including the Respondent unless he waives his right to challenge this Under,
may violate this confidentiality by releasing, discussing or circulating this
Order.
Mr. George Hatchard
July 29, 1982
Page 4
Any person who violates the confidentiality of a Commission proceeding is
guilty of 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).
SSC /rdp
Sincerely,
r
Paul J. /'mith
Chairma