Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout170 BailetsMr. Clifford Bailets c/o James L. Davis, Esq. and William R. Hoffmeyer, Esq. Hoffmeyer & Semmelman 30 N. George Street York, PA 17401 Re: #82- 30- C(1 -2) #82 -80 -C Dear Mr. Bailets: STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 ORDER OF THE COMMISSION February 28, 1983 Order No. 170 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. The individual allegations, conclusions, and findings on which those conclusions are based are as follows: I. Allegation: That you used your public office to cause the occupational assessment of another person to be changed for your private purposes. A. Findings 1. You are an elected tax collector and as such are subject to the provisions of the Ethics Act, Act 170 of 1978. You have served as tax collector since January 1, 1970. 2. As a tax collector you recommend to the enumerator that tax classifications of individuals be changed. Individuals whose classification are recommended for change may appeal to the school district and the district has the final decision. 3. There is no evidence that you made any recommendations contrary to a normal policy. 4. Recommendations which are accepted or approved by the school district do not result in a financial gain for you because you are paid a salary not a commission. Clifford Bailets February 28, 1983 Page 2 Discussion: Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act requires: (a) No public official or public employee shall use his public office or any confidential information received through his holding public office to obtain financial 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). There is no evidence that you use your office or confidential information of that office to achieve financial gain by recommending changes in tax classifications of any individuals. Conclusion: You did not violate Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act in any of the actions you took recommending changes in the tax classification of various individuals. II. Allegation: That you, as a tax collector, used your public office and confidential information from that office to acquire property through tax sales by using other persons to make the original purchases and then having them transfer the property to you. A. Findings: Findings 1 through 4 are incorporated here by reference. 5. The only property purchases in which you were involved took place on August 11, 1977 and July 10, 1978. The Ethics Act did not become effective until January 1, 1979. 6. Information regarding tax sales is not confidential and the tax collector has no confidential information concerning these tax sales. 7. Properties are advertised in local newspapers and sold to the highest bidders. Discussion: The requirements of Section 3(a) are noted above. While the property purchases took place prior to the effective date of the Ethics Act and therefore these transactions would not be a basis for a finding of a violation of the Ethics Act, in fairness, we point out that we found no evidence that would have been a violation of the Ethics Act had it been in effect on those dates. Conclusion: The property purchases took place before the effective date (January 1, 1979) of the Ethics Act thus are not subject to the Act's requirements. Clifford Bailets February 28, 1983 Page 3 III. Allegation: As a tax collector, you also served as your own bonding agent, thus collecting commissions on the bond without properly advertising for this contract. A. Findings: Findings 1 through 7 are incorporated here by reference. 8. Prior to January 1, 1982, York County 2nd Class Township Tax Collectors were responsible for obtaining their own bond. 9. The amount and sufficiency of the bond had to be approved by the County Court of Common Pleas. 10. The rate and commission for bonds are the same for any agency and are established by the Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner. 11. You purchased your bond in 1978 through a company for which you were an agent and received commissions as a result of this purchase. Discussion: Section 3(a) requirements have been cited above. The Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner establishes the rates and commissions for bonds and the County Court of Common Pleas reviews the purchase for amount and sufficiency. These are adequate safeguards to avoid having the tax collector obtain financial gain through the purchase of these bonds even where he or she serves as his own bonding agent and collects commission. In addition, your original bond was purchased in 1978 and was in force for four years. As noted above, the Ethics Act was not effective until January 1, 1979 and your 1978 transaction would not be subject to the requirements of that Act. Conclusion: The bonding procedure and original purchase took place before the effective date (January 1, 1979) of the Ethics Act thus are not subject to the Act's requirements. IV. Allegation: That you violated Section 3 of the Ethics Act by having Fairview Township pay the deductible portion of a judgment found against you for negligence in office. Clifford Bailets February 28, 1983 Page 4 Findings: Findings 1 through 11 are incorporated here by reference. 12. At an open and public meeting, the Fairview Township Supervisors voted to pay the deductible of $1,000.00 in a $5,000.00 judgment against you and the insurance company for the township paid the remaining $4,000.00 of the judgment. a. The suit settled by these payments stemmed from a taxpayer's change of address notification to the tax collector in 1966. b. The land involved in the settlement was sold in 1972 for non - payment of taxes but the sale was declared null and void by the York County Court of Common Pleas in 1974. c. You were one of four additional defendants in the case. 13. You had no role in recommending or approving the township supervisors' action. Discussion: Section 3(a) has been previously cited. You did not participate in a recommendation or final action in this decision and at least one of those criteria would have been required for a violation of Section 3(a) to be found. Conclusion: You did not violate Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act when the Fairview Township supervisors voted to pay the $1,000.00 deductible in the $5,000.00 judgment against you. V. Allegation: That you violated the Ethics Act by having your own occupational assessment set as a clerk. Findings: Findings 1 through 13 are incorporated here by reference. 14. You did not establish your own tax classification. The West Shore School District is the authority which establishes and changes occupational assessments. Discussion: Section 3(a) has been previously cited and applies to this allegation. We find no evidence that you recommended or had final authority in determining your own occupational classification. In addition, evidence indicates that your classification is compatible with other similar classifications. Conclusion: You did not violate Section 3(a) of the Act in the establishment of your occupational classification because you did not recommend or participate in the decision on that classification. Clifford Bailets February 28, 1983 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 be made available as a public document 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 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). PJS /jc (7) By the Commission, Paul J! /"mith Chair