Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout181 HoculockMr. Frederick M. Hoculock Chairman, Board of Supervisors Allegheny Township R. D. #5, Box 279 Apollo, PA 15613 Re: #82 -79 -C Dear Mr. Hoculock: STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 ORDER OF THE COMMISSION February 28, 1983 Order No. 181 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 have violated Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act by using your office and /or confidential informtion to have the township pay for inspections of a subdivision owned by you, despite a township ordinance requiring that these costs be borne by the subdivider. A. Findings 1. You were appointed to the Allegheny Township Board of Supervisors on March 4, 1981 and as such are a public official subject to the provisions of the Ethics Act. 2. You are also a developer and owner of Ridgeview Estates. 3. The subdivision plan for Ridgeview Estates was approved by the Allegheny Township Planning Commission on September 19, 1978 and the Allegheny Township Board of Supervisors on October 30, 1978. 4. Allegheny Township Ordinance No. 110 -60 governs rules and regulations for subdivisions in Allegheny Township. a. The township solicitor reviewed the application of this ordinance to the road in your development. Frederick M. Hoculock February 28, 1983 Page 2 b. The solicitor's opinion as noted in the minutes of the August 10, 1981 supervisors' meeting read "It is his opinion that although Mr. Hoculock, Developer, has not violated the law as stated in the Subdivision Ordinance, he has violated the intent of the ordinance." 5. On Septemher 14, 1981, you and the township supervisors entered into an agreement in which you agreed to regrade the road in Ridgeview Estates and apply material to comply with the original 1978 approval. The township engineer (Byro Tech. Inc.) conducted three inspections of Ridgeview Estates between September 14, 1981 and December 3, 1981. 6. Byro Tech, Inc. submitted Invoice No. 353 to Allegheny Township on December 3, 1981 for $372.90 to cover their costs of conducting the three inspections noted above. 7. This bill was part of a package of bills submitted to the Board of Supervisors for approval at the regular meeting of December 14, 1981. You seconded the motion and voted to pay all bills. 8. You have not participated in discussions or votes of the township supervisors concerning Ridgeview Estates. You have abstained and /or turned meetings over to another supervisor. 9. There is no evidence that you have participated or used your office or confidential information in any activities pertaining to Ridgeview Estates. 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 i 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). _ The original agreement with the township supervisors was entered into in 1978 before you became a supervisor and before the effective date of Act 170. Even if Act 170 had been in force on that date, there was no action on your part which could have been considered illegal or inappropriate. Since becoming a township supervisor in March of 1981, you have avoided discussions or votes on matters relating to Ridgeview Estates and there is no evidence that you have used your office or confidential information of that office for personal financial gain. There is adequate evidence that the issues surrounding the road conditions in Ridgeview Estates has been a public matter, openly discussed at township meetings, and involving at least two court actions. Frederick M. Hoculock February 28, 1983 Page 3 Section 1 of the Ethics Act also requires that public officials avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest with the public trust. Your abstention from participation in voting on matters relating to your private interest also eliminates the appearance of a conflict of interest. Your participation by seconding and voting for a motion to pay the bill of the township engineer for the inspection of the road in Ridgeview Estates did not violate the Ethics Act nor did it create the appearance of a conflict of interest because the payment of this bill was a non - discretionary action required because the other supervisors - without your participation - directed the township engineer to conduct the inspections. The issues surrounding your compliance with the subdivision ordinance and your October 30, 1978 letter to the supervisors are still in dispute. We do not need to comment upon the dispute or the solicitor's interpretation of the letter or spirit of Ordinance No. 110 -60 because there is no evidence that you acquired /realized personal financial gain from the inspections (See Nos. 5 -7, above). The Township, without your participation, directed the Engineer to perform this work and could properly pay for same. However, you cannot participate, as a public official in these or any other township actions involving your private interests. You must comply with Sections 3(a) and (b), and scrupulously avoid actions which would create even the appearance of a conflict with the puhlic trust. You must abstain from participating in any township action which directly or indirectly affects your private interests. Conclusion: You have neither violated Section 3(a) of the Act nor have you created the appearance of a conflict of interest with the public trust because you have abstained from participation in discussions and votes of township matters relating to your private interest. 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 puhlic 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 this Order, may violate this confidentiality by releasing, discussing or circulating this Order. Frederick M.Hoculock February 28, 1983 Page 4 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 By the Commission, 412,f meth Chairman