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