Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout94 RobertsMr. Donovan Roberts R. D. # #1 Conneaut Lake, PA 16316 Re: #81 -51 -C Dear Mr. Roberts: STATE ETHICS COMMISSION ' 308 FINANCE BUILDING " HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 ORDER OF THE COMMISSION January 5, 1982 No. 94 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 Act 170. The individual allegations and findings on which our conclusion is based are: I. Allegation: That as an elected Supervisor in Sadsbury Township, you acted in your official capacity to approve a re- zoning request by Utility Constructors, Inc., where you have two brothers -in -laws working for Utility Constructors (Mr. Summers) and have business connections with Mr. Summers. Findings /Discussion: As an elected Supervisor, you are a public official subject to the terms of Act 170, the Ethics Act. Section 3(a) of Act 170 prohibits a public official or public employee from using his or her office or confidential information gained from that office for personal - financial gain; Section 3(c) restricts a public official or public employee from contracting with his or her governmental body for $500 or more unless it is done through an open and public process. On April 8, 1980, you voted in favor of passing Ordinance No. 136 -A to grant zoning- ordinance changes to Utility Constructors. Mr. Donovan Roberts January 5, 1982 Page -2- On August 27, 1980, the Common Pleas Court of Crawford County declared that Ordinance invalid and directed the Supervisors to resubmit the proposed zoning - amendment application to the Sadsbury Township Planning & Zoning Commission so that the Commission would have at least 30 days, but not more than 60 days to conduct an official investigation and make written recommendations to the Board. The Board was also ordered to conduct a public hearing and to incorporate the transcript of the prior hearing into the testimony of the future hearing. You are a self - employed- heating and air - conditioning repairman, and a sub - foreman for National Fuel, Inc. There is no evidence that you performed any work for Utility Constructors. Your brothers -in -law are employed by Associated Con- tractors and this company sub - contracts with Utility Constructors. Conclusion: Your participation in the decision and the vote on the re- zoning request of Utility Constructors is not a violation of Act 170 and you may continue to fully participate in similar actions of the council. If an action in which you or your immediate family have an interest comes before the Council, you must abstain from participating in the actions of Council in those specific matters. While Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act prohibits the use of public office or confidential information from that office and Section 3(c) prohibits a contract between a public official or public employee and his or her governmental body if that contract is for $500 or more, the relationships and actions above do not conflict with either of those sections. The previously cited prohibitions of Sections 3(a) and 3(c) include the spouse and immediate family of the public official or public employee. Immediate family as used in Act 170 does not include brothers -in -law. There is no evidence that you or your immediate family violated either of these sections. Mr. Donovan Roberts January 5, 1982 Page -3- 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 avail- able as a public document within 15 days unless you file documentation with the Commission which justifies recon- sideration and /or challenges pertinent factual findings. During this 15 -day period, no one, including the Re- spondent and /or Complainant, 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, Paul JI Smith Chairman