Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout107 BishopMr. Henry Bishop, Manage Horsham Township Authority 189 Horsham Road Horsham, PA 19044 Re: #80 -12 -C STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 ORDER OF THE COMMISSION February 11, 1982 No. 107 Dear Mr. Bishop: 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 allegaticns and finds no violation of Act 170. The ind::_vidual allegations and findings on which our conclusion is based ar_s: Findings: WSC. Aliegati..n: That, as Authority Manager, you sell material to developers served by the Authority and specified by the Authority Engineeer. 1. Yc are the sole shareholder and President of the firm known as Water & Sewer Company Management,_ Inc. (here- inafter WSCM) incorporated February 26, 1964. 2. WSCm ntracted with the Horsham Township Authority (hereinafter, the Authority) to provide service to the Authority to connect customers to water mains, to supervise day -to -day operations and maintenance of the water system and to repair said system. 3. WSCM's name was changed to Pennsylvania Waterworks Spply Company (hereinafter Pa. WSC) on May 7, 1964 and on. March 23, 1978_, WSCM was merged into Pa. WSC. 4. You are the sole shareholder and President of Pa. Mr. Henry Bishop Page -2- February 11, 1982 5. Pa. WSC maintains the same relationship with the Authority as was held by WSCM as described in No. 2 above. 6. Pa. WSC also sells material to contractors doing development work in Horsham Township. 7. The Engineer for the Authority establishes the specifications for materials, installation, etc., to be used within the Authority's water system, after recommendation to and action by the Authority. 8. You have no role in designating or choosing the Authority Engineer, nor do you make the decisions as to the specifications established by the Engineer for materials, installation, etc., required by the Authority. 9. You are not a member of the Authority. Discussion: We will discuss any alleged violations of the Ethics Act on the assumption that you are a "public employee" within the parameters of the Ethics Act without deciding whether you fall within those parameters. Assuming you are a "public employee" we find no violation of the Ethics Act in your activities of selling material to developers. The materials you sell through Pa. WSC are made generally available. You serve customers other than those doing water service installation required by or within the Authority's jurisdiction. You sell items specified by the Authority Engineer for use within the Authority's system, but you do not establish those specifications. Conclusion: Under these circumstances we find no violation of the Ethics Act in your activities vis -a -vis Pa. WSC's sale of goods. II. Allegation: That you have business connnections with the only contracting company allowed to install lateral services to various properties. Findings: 1. The contract between the Authority and Pa. WSC provides that Pa. WSC will install all lateral services to properties required or desiring to tap into the Authority water system. Mr. Henry Bishop Page -3- February 11, 1982 2. Pa. WSC performs such installations as a part of this contract. Discussion: Assuming that the contract between the Authority and Pa. WSC makes Pa. WSC or yourself "public employees," the services you supply and the job you perform (installing laterals) is required by your contract. If you are a "public employee" these services are performed as a Hart of your job function. Conclusion: Under the circumstances presented your actions or those of Pa. WSC in installing laterals does not violate the Ethics Act. III. Allegation: That developers are required to use only the Authority's Engineer for design, inspection and approval of projects. Findings: 1. Tae Authority Engineer develops specifications for design, installation, inspection and approval of Authority projects and tap -in services. See I, No. 7 above. 2. Yc'u have no authority or responsibility for approving developers' plans or requests within the specifications developed by the Authority Engineer. See also I, No. 8 above. Discussion: The fact that developers must comply with standards and specifications developed by the Authority Engineer and adopted by the Authority is not inconsistent with the requirements of the Ethics Act. Such standards must exist. We have found no substantial evidence to support the allegation that you had a role in the development of ,these specifications so that you could be said to be using your ''public office," assuming you are a "public employee," for your personal gain or that of Pa. WSC. Conclusion: There is no violatica of tie Ethics Act in the circumstances presented or the facts found. Mr. Henry Bishop Page -4- February 11, 1982 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, Taul J . iSmith Chairman