HomeMy WebLinkAbout96 LoeperMr. Thomas A. Loeper
1114 Greenwood Street
Reading, PA 19603
Re: # 81 -54 -C
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120
ORDER OF THE COMMISSION
January 5, 1982
No. 96
Dear Mr. Loeper:
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 after your election as School
Director, you acquired a position in the tax office of
the Treasurer of Reading; that 50% of your salary is
paid for by the school district in an appropriation to
the Treasurer's office; that you voted for this payment
and this creates a conflict of interest.
Findings /Discussion: Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act
prohibits a public offical or public employee from
using his public office or any confidential information
received through holding that office to obtain financial
gain for himself, a member of his immediate family or a
business with which he is associated.
Section 3(d) prohibits a public official or public
employee or a member of his immediate family or any
business with which they are associated from contracting
with his governmental body without an open and public
process when contracts are valued at $500 or more.
Section 3(d) also allows the Commission to address
other areas of possible conflict.
That you are a School Director in Reading School District
and were elected to that position in November of 1979.
Mr. Thomas A. Loeper
January 5, 1982
Page -2-
That you have been employed by the City Treasurer of
Reading since December of 1979. As a Teller- Cashier
you are responsible for the collection of monies which
are brought into City Hall including school- district
taxes, property taxes, occupation taxes, earned - income
taxes, business - privilege taxes, fees and permits, etc.
That as a school -board member, you do vote on the
budget and this budget contains money for the contract
for tax collection with the city treasurer.
That you have voted on the budget and have made recommen-
dations and comments on the proposed budget but do not
recall making specific recommendations concerning the
amount of money paid to the City Treasurer's office in
Reading for the collection of school - district taxes.
You were not a public official or public employee of
the city treasurer's office prior to your obtaining
employment there as a Teller- Cashier, and therefore,
could not violate the Section 3(c) prohibition against
contracting with your governmental body. At this time,
your governmental body was the school district.
Whether your current employment with the city treasurer
makes you a public employee for the purposes of Act 170
is not germane to this investigation.
There is no evidence that you used your official position
as a school director to obtain employment with the city
treasurer's office and therefore, did not violate
Section 3(a).
Your participation in voting on a school budget which
includes a contract with your employer may create an
appearance of conflict and should be avoided.
Conclusion: There is no violation of Act 170 in your
being a school director and being employed as a Teller -
Cashier in the city treasurer's office. However, to
avoid an appearance of a conflict of interest, you
should abstain from participating in discussing or
voting on the line item in the budget which deals with
the contract with the city treasurer. You may, however,
discuss and vote on the budget in general including any
of the other line items. You should publicly state
your reasons for any abstentions.
Mr. Thomas A. Loeper
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 ,jJ. Smith
Chairman