Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout158 O' PakeMichael O'Pake, Senator Senate of Pennsylvania Room 543 Main Capitol Building Harrisburg, PA 17120 RE: No. 81 -98 -C Dear Senator O'Pake: are: STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 September 13, 1982 ORDER OF THE COMMISSION No. 158 • 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 no violation of the Ethics Act. The individual allegations and findings on which our conclusion is based I. Allegation: That your Reading Senate Office, routinely charged constituents fcr performing services that are normally rendered without charge. A. Findings: 1. You currently serve as a State Senator and as such are a public official subject to the Ethics Act (1970- 1978). 2. Your Senatorial District Office is located at 607 Washington Street, Reading, Pennsylvania. 3. Operating costs for this office are paid from public funds. 4. Mrs. Joan Kepley is your secretary in the District Office and is also a Notary Public; she pays all fees and necessary expenses to be a Notary Public. 5. Mrs. Kepley provides free notary services for her own and your relatives and friends and provides free notary services for other minor matters related to constituent services. Michael O'Pake, Senator September 13, 1982 Page 2 6. She collects and keeps fees for title transfers and some affidavits and applications. 7. The fees for affidavits and applications are minor and little time is used to notarize these documents. 8. a. Title transfers are time consuming. During the last year, Mrs. Kepley collected and kept fees for six to eight title transfers. b. Mrs. Kepley performs the notary work referred to during time for which she is paid from public funds. c. There is no evidence of charges for notary service in the district office other than those noted above. 9. This practice was abandoned when it was reported in a Reading newspaper. You publicly advised persons who felt they were charged for services by your office and should not have been to apply to you and you would refund their money. The only persons who requested a refund were two newspaper reporters who had written the story on the practice of charging fees. 10. You have not received income from these fees. B. Discussion: Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act prohibits a public official from using his or her public office or confidential information received through holding that office from obtaining financial gain other than legal compensation; Section 3(b) prohibits a public official from accepting or soliciting any thing of value and any person from offering to a public official any thing of value based on the understanding that the officials vote, action or judgment would be influenced. While the amount of time and money involved in Mrs. Kepley's private notary work is minor, she was performing private work while on the public payroll. Although there is no evidence that you received financial benefit from these transactions, these transactions occurred in your senatorial office and you are accountable to the public for use of that office. Despite the small amount of time and money involved in the notary activities for which Mrs. Kepley charged, the public had cause to wonder whether a clear line between private and public interest was being drawn. Michael O'Pake, Senator September 13, 1982 Page 3 Even though you realized no financial gain from this practice, your decision to abandon the practice was necessary to avoid an appearance of a conflict with the public trust. A clear line between public and private interests in necessary to prevent public misperceptions and to strenghten the faith and confidence of the people in their government. C. Conclusion: You have not violated the Ethics Act and you have discontinued any activities which could have created the appearance of a conflict of interest and were de minimus. II. Allegation: That as a Senator and a candidate for the public Office of *. — Attorney General, you solicited or accepted campaign contributions with the understanding that your official vote, action, or judgment, would be or was influenced by those contributions in the following instances: (a.) A $14,000 contribution from the Political Action Committee of the Pennsylvania Trial Lawyers Association (LAWPAC) in relation to your actions as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and legislation relating to product /liability. (b.) Unspecified contributions from liquor store employees in relation to your votes against legislation designated as liquor store /control reform bills. A. Findings: The pertinent findings made previously in relation to Allegation #1 are incorporated herein by reference. 1. You served as Chairman for the Senate Judiciary Committee from 1978 to 1981. In addition, you were a member of this Committee from 1974 to the present and currently serve as the minority chairman. 2. Senate Bill 527, a bill to create a product liability act, was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 21, 1977; no further action was taken. 3. Senate Bill 585 also dealing with product liability was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committeee on March 28, 1977, reported out of Committee on November 2, 1977, and passed on June 28, 1978. It was sent to the House of Representatives, Labor Relations Committee where no further action was taken. 4. On June 19, 1979, you were one of six senators (0'Pake, Zemprelli, Gurzenda, Manbeck, Lloyd, and Howard) sponsoring a resolution directing the Joint State Government Commission to conduct an indepth study of product/ liability in Pennsylvania; this resolution was referred to the Rules and Executive Nomination Committee in 1979. Michael O'Pake, Senator September 13, 1982 Page 4 5. House Bill 1083, an act amending Title 42 (Judicary and Judicial Procedure) by adding provisions relating to product /liability actions, was passed by the House on February 5, 1980, and referred to the Senate Judicary Committee on February 11, 1980. No further action was taken on this bill. 6. There were no minutes taken by the Judiciary Committee as to their meetings on the product /liability law; this is standard practice for many legislative committees. 7. There were no public hearings held on the product /liability bills by you or the chairman of the Judiciary Committee 8. LAWPAC is the political action committee of the Pennsylvania Trial Lawyers Association. LAWPAC contributed to the campaigns of both the Democrat and Republican candidates for the Office of the Attorney General. B. Discussion: Section 3(b) of the Ethics Act specifically prohibits the giving and receipt of a "political contribution" based upon any understanding that the vote, official conduct or judgment of the public official or employee or candidate for public office would be influenced thereby. This section makes it clear that not all campaign contributions violate Section 3(b) of the Ethics Act. Only those which are given with the understanding that official conduct would be influenced are prohibited. We recognize that in the broadest sense all political contributions are motivated by the giver's desire to see a certain candidate succeed who may by more favorable to the giver's viewpoints and interests. This "motive" does not constitute the type of "understanding" necessary to make an otherwise valid contribution a violation of Section 3(b) of the Ethics Act. In the present case, our findings fail to indicate any "understanding" which would transform these contributions into violations of Section 3(b) of the Ethics Act. C. Conclusion: There is no violation of Section 3(b) of the Ethics Act or the appearance of a conflict of interest in the circumstances presented. Michael O'Pake, Senator September 13, 1982 Page 5 Our files in this case will remain confidential in accordance with Section 8(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 Order, may violate this confidentiality by releasing, discussing or circulating this Order. 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). Sincerely, EMS /rdp P y. Sr't Chairman