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later rescinded because of failure to meet the technical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