Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout155 KossMrs. Betty Koss, Secretary Planning Commission of Covington Township c/o Brian J. Cali, Esq. Suite 415 Scranton Electric Building Scranton, PA 18503 RE: 81- 83- C(1 -3) Dear Mrs. Koss: are: STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 August 23, 1982 ORDER OF COMMISSION No. 155 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 will take no action. The individual allegations and findings on which our conclusion is based Findings: 1. You are a member of the Covington Township Planning Commission. You receive no compensation for this position. 2. The Planning Commission is responsible for seeing that subdivision plans submitted comply with all ordinances and regulations of the Township. These plans also must be approved by the County Planning Commission, the Township Engineer, and finally, by the Township Supervisors. 3. You participated in Planning Commission decisions on subdivision plans submitted by Eagle Lake Corporation. These plans were considered and approved during the latter part of 1980 and early part of 1981. 4. Your sole responsibility as Planning Commissioner is to assure that proposed plans comply with the environmental requirements and township specifications. 5. The Eagle Lake Corporation purchased a house from you about May of 1981. The approval of their subdivision plan Kad taken place prior to this time. 6. All official meetings of the Planning Commission are open to the public and attended by Eagle Lake representatives and other interested parties. Mrs. Betty Koss, Secretary August 23, 1982 Page 2 III. Discussion: The initial question to be answered in your case is whether unpaid members of a planning commission are subject to the Ethics Act so that their conduct would he subject to the requirements of the Ethics Act. To answer this question we reviewed 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 While appointed, non - compensated persons might be said to be clearly excluded from coverage, this definition must also be reviewed in light of the recent ruling in Snider v. Thornburgh, Pa. , 436 A.2d 593 (1981). In this 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 assessing 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 planning commission 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 the period when you were reviewing the Eagle Lake plans for approval. During this period you were not covered by the Ethics Act and we will not censure your conduct at this point when such action /conduct was undertaken at a point in time when your inclusion within the definition of "public official" was not clear. Mrs. Betty Koss, Secretary August 23, 1982 Page 3 We feel free to point out, however, that Section 1 of the Ethics Act declares ghat "... the financial interests of holders of or candidates for public office present neither a conflict nor the appearance of a conflict with the public trust." Public officials and employees can avoid actual or apparent conflicts with the public trust by either avoiding business relationships with those they regulate, insuring that those business relationships are publicly known, and abstaining from participation in any matters which would affect the parties in that business relationship. We suggest that if similar circumstances arrive in the future, you make a public record of your relationship with the people submitting the subdivision plans. IV. Conclusion: The State Ethics Commission will take no further action in this matter in light of the serious question of your inclusion within the coverage of the Ethics Act at the time the conduct /action in question occurred. This conclusion is not meant to condone or condemn your conduct. Should you clearly be within the definition 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 and be generally guided by our discussion above. i w S e t ; Our files in this case will remain confidential in accordance with Section 8(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 P.S. 408(a). and will become available as a public documnt�wwithin v1 5�days s unless you f file documentation with the Commission which justifies reconsideration and /or chal- lenges pertinent factual findings. During this 15-day period, including the Respondent unless he waives his right to challenge , Order, may violate this confidentiality by releasing, discussing or circulating this Order. Any person who violates the confidentiality of a Commission proceing guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be fined not more than $1000 orimprisoned for not more than one year or both, see 65 P.S. 409(e). Sincerely, Paul J. Smith Chairman/