HomeMy WebLinkAbout169 WolpertMr. M. J. Wolpert
1 Broadway
Duncannon, PA 17020
Re: #82 -10 -C (3 -3)
Dear Mr. Wolpert:
are:
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120
ORDER OF THE COMMISSION
Order #169
January 11, 1983
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 Section 3(e) of Act
170.
The individual allegations and findings on which our conclusion is based
I. Allegation: That Mr. M. J. Wolpert, a former School Director of
Susquenita - School District, is violating Sections 3(a) and 3(e) of Act 170 by
doing business with his former school district within one year after his
leaving office, which may include use of the former office or confidential
information of that office or representation before your former governmental
body within one year of leaving that body.
II. Findings:
1. You served as a School Director in the Susquenita School District until
your resignation in September, 1981.
2. You were a public official while serving as a school director and upon
your resignation became a former public official subject to Section 3(e) of
the Ethics Act.
3. You did not solicit business from the school district during the year
following your resignation.
4. School district personnel contacted you and you did complete work work for
them.
M. J. Wolpert
January 11, 1983
Page 2
5. During October of 1981, you billed the school district $681.15 for work
performed in October, 1981 for repairing and re- wiring the scoreboard, a
"breaker" in the shop, repairing a clogged drain, and an electrical part.
None of this was emergency work.
6. On receiving our letter of April 12, 1982 pointing out that these actions
might be a violation of the Ethics Act, you notified the school district that
you will not do business with them until one year after your resignation.
7. There is no evidence that while you were a school director that you used
your office or confidential information of that office to arrange for the work
completed after you left office.
III. Discussion: Section 3(e) of the Ethics Act provides that:
(e) No former official or public employee shall
represent a person, with or without
compensation on any matter before the
governmental body with which he has been
associated for one year after he leaves that
body. 65 P.S. 403(e).
While you did not initiate contact with the board, the law does not
provide exceptions based on who initiates the action nor does it allow
representation if the initial contact comes from the former governmental body.
However, your ceasing to do business with the school district as
soon as we notified you of a possible violation, indicates that you had no
intention to violate the Ethics Act.
Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act 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 fianancial
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) .
We found no evidence of the use of your office or confidential
information to get the work which you did after leaving office and therefore
you did not violate Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act.
M. J. Wolpert
January 11, 1983
Page 3
Conclusion: You have violated Section 3(e) by doing business with the
Susquenita School District within one year after leaving your position as a
school director. However, you immediately stopped business contacts with the
school district upon learning of the Ethics Act prohibition and the Commission
will take no further action in this case.
You did not violate Section 3(a) of the Act.
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 after service
unless you file documentation with the Commission which justifies
reconsideration and /or challenges pertinent factual findings. See 51 Pa. Code
2.38. During this 15 -day period, no one, including the Respondent unless he
waives his right to challenge thisUrder, 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).
PJS /jc
Sincerely,
aul J.
Chairman