Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout95 MillerMr. Richard Miller R. D. #2 Conneaut Lake, PA 16316 Re: #81-51-C Dear Mr. Miller: STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 ORDER OF THE COMMISSION January 5, 1982 No. 95 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 received payment for work done for Utility Constructors and acted in your official capacity as Supervisor to approve a re- zoning request presented by Utility Constructors, Inc. Findings /Discussion: You are a Township Supervisor and as such, you are a public official and 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 on confidential information gained from that office for personal - financial gain. This prohibition applies to members of the official's immediate family and any business in which he, she or members of the immediate family have an interest. You built a house for the President of Utility Constructors 12 years ago and have performed other contract work for which Utility Constructors paid. However, all of this work was performed prior to 1979. Mr. Richard Miller January 5, 1982 Page -2- You also performed contract work for people who were opposed to the Utility Constructors re- zoning request. Utility Constructors presented a re- zoning request amendment to the Sadsbury Township Supervisors. On January 22, 1980, you voted in favor of a motion to accept a zoning- amendment application from Utility Constructors, Inc., and to forward a copy to the Sadsbury Planning Commission and Crawford County Planning Commission. On March 11, 1980, you voted to adopt the finding of facts and conclusions of law and grant the permit to Utility Constructiors, subject to the conditions as set forth in the conclusions of law. On April 8, 1980, you voted in favor of passing Ordinance No. 136 -A which would grant zoning- ordinance changes to Utility Constructors. On April 14, 1981, you abstained from voting on a zoning- ordinance change requested by Utility Constructors, Inc. You abstained from this vote after being told by Mr. R. C. Thomas, Solicitor for Sadsbury Township, that information in a State Ethics Commission Opinion Digest indicated that was the proper course of action. 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. There is no evidence that you received personal - financial gain for your actions in these re- zoning matters. You abstained from participation in these actions as soon as the Solicitor notified you that this would be the appropriate action. We believe, as set forth in Sowers, 80 -050, (copy attached) that where you are interested in a project- contract or can reasonably expect to work on the scene as a contractor or sub - contractor, for example, you must abstain as a Supervisor from partici- pating in that decision. However, we do not find that your past business relations with Utility Constructors were of such a nature that abstention would be mandated. If you do obtain work for Utility Constructors or can reasonably expect to obtain the same, abstention would be required and the reasons for this abstention should be made part of the public record. Mr. Richard Miller January 5, 1982 Page -3- Conclusion: There is no evidence that you violated Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act or created an appearance of a conflict of interest through the votes discussed above. Whenever the Supervisors are considering official action on a matter which may specifically affect your business, you are advised to abstain and to publicly note the reasons for your abstention. This will avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. In addition, if you obtain or can reasonably expect to obtain work from the project or request in question, you should abstain from participation in the official action of the Supervisors. 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/ j c Attachment Sincerely, `maul J. .mith Chairman