Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout110 TuckerMr. Alvin H. Tucker, Jr. 1994 Market Street Extended Middletown, PA 17057 Re: #81 -95 -C Dear Mr. Tucker: STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 ORDER OF THE COMMISSION March 11, 1982 No. 110 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. I. Allegation: That as an employee of the Department of Health, you are bidding and selling supplies and products to the Pennsylvania State Police under the auspices of Howard Research Labs, Inc., an enterprise in which you are principal stockholder and working partner and in which your wife is active. Findings: 1. You are an employee of the Department of Health, Common- wealth of Pennsylvania and are classified as a Public Health Examiner I. 2. You and your wife are principal (257) stockholders and partners in a firm called Howard Research Labs, Inc. (herein- after Howard Labs). 3. Howard Labs, as part of its business, is attempting to manufacture and market breathalizer equipment in various states for use in testing persons suspected of drunken driving. 4. Howard Labs submitted a response (November 30, 1981) to a bid proposal of the Department of General Services (GSA), #570959, for purchase of breathalizer equipment for use by the Pennsylvania State Police. Mr. Alvin H. Tucker, Jr. Page -2- March 11, 1982 5. Howard Labs was originally awarded the bid but this was later rescinded because of failure to meet the technical requirements of the bid proposal. 6. You do not conduct any Howard Labs business while on State Health Department time. 7. You were not aware of the fact that Howard Labs had submitted a proposal as set forth in No. 4 above and your name did not appear on this proposal. 8. Your supervisors at the Department of Health were informed of your business association with Howard Labs and you disclosed this business and financial interest on your Financial Interest Statement which you signed on May 1, 1981. Discussion: As a "public employee" within the purview of the Ethics Act, your conduct must conform to the requirements of the Ethics Act. The most pertinent requirement in question here is Section 3(c) of the Ethics Act. Section 3(c) provides that: No public official or public employee or a member of his immediate family or any business in which the person or a member of the person's immediate family is a director, officer, owner or holder of stock exceeding 5% of the equity at fair market value of the business shall enter into any contract valued at $500 or more with a governmental body unless the contract has been awarded through an open and public process, including prior public notice and subsequent public dis- closure of all proposals considered and contracts awarded. Any contract made in violation of this subsection shall be voidable by a court of competent juris- diction if the suit is commenced within 90 days of making of the contract. 65 P.S. 403(c). The Commission has ruled that the restrictions of Section 3(c) apply only to the governmental body with which you are "associated." See Williams, 79 -012. In your case you are associated, at most, with the Department of Health. Therefore, since you are not "associated with" GSA or the State Police, you or your business, Howard Labs, are not precluded from contracting or doing business with GSA. Mr. Alvin H. Tucker, Jr. Page -3- March 11, 1982 Indeed, we note that even if the Department of Health, Section would not preclude this contract. require that any such contract be public process. A bid process is process. Conclusion: The circumstances presented and the facts found here do not violate the provisions of the Ethics Act. 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 avail- able as a public document within 15 days unless you file documentation with the Comildssicn which justifies recon- sideration and /or challenges pertinent factual findings. 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. Any person who violates mission proceeding is guilty fined not more than $1000 or one year or both, see 65 P.S. PJS /jc you were to contract with 3(c) of the Ethics Act Section 3(c) would simply awarded in an open and surely an open and public the confidentiality of a Com- of a misdemeanor and shall be imprisoned for not more than 409(e). Sincerely, aul J / /Smith Chairm