HomeMy WebLinkAbout113 Nastasiare:
Mr. Joseph Nastasi
C/0 Charles Wilson, Esq.
2 West Butler Street
New Britain, PA 18901
Re: #81 -80 -C
Dear Mr. Nastasi:
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120
ORDER OF THE COMMISSION
April 27, 1982
No. 113
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
I. Allegation: That you, as a member of the West Rockhill Planning
Commission, on February 16, 1981 voted on a subdivision plan presented by
Mobil Oil Company,
II. Allegation: That you, as Secretary of this Planning Commission, voted to
approve said subdivision plan and signed the plan as Secretary without
disclosing that you had a financial interest in the property subject to the
subdivision request.
III. Allegation: That you took the actions set forth in No. 1 and 2 above
when you had previous to February 16, 1981 signed an Agreement of Sale with
Mobil Oil Company for the purchase of this property to be subdivided and that
you did purchase the property on March 24, 1981.
Findings:
1. You were a member of the West Rockhill Planning Commission
(hereinafter, the Commission) during 1981 and at the time of the actions in
question here.
2, You entered into a Sales Agreement with Mobil Oil Company (Mobil) for the
purchase of property, which was subject to a subdivision request which was
presented to the Commission for review and said Agreement included a
stipulation that Mobil would have to obtain approval for the subdivision of
the property.
Joseph Nastasi
April 27, 1982
Page -2-
3. Records of the Commission do not show whether you voted or abstained when
Mobil's subdivision request was considered by the Commission.
4. You stated that you had told one of the other Commission members that you
had an interest in this property. This member recalled your telling him that
purchase of a property was in question but he was not certain which property
you were discussing.
5. As Secretary of the Planning Commission, you signed the approval of the
subdivision plans of Mobil; this was a ministerial function required by your
office.
6. Plans which indicated that this land might be of interest to a local
hospital were discussed at a public meeting and this information was available
to anyone who was interested.
Discussion: Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act prohibits a public official or
public employee from using his or her office for confidential information from
that office for personal - financial gain.
It appears that the land which was bought from Mobil was for sale for
some time and that other possible interest in the land such as that of the
hospital was publicly known.
The West Rockhill Township Supervisors had final approval of this
subdivision plan. However, it would have eliminated questions and furthered
the purposes of good government had you clearly made your financial interest
known and had an abstention been clearly recorded at the meeting at which the
Planning Commission recommended approval of this subdivision request.
Conclusion: There is no evidence that you used your office or confidential
information from that office to realize personal- financial gain. Thus, there
was no violation of Act 170 in your purchase of the land in question.
However, the Ethics Act would require abstention in these circumstances in the
future and you should make your interest known and place your abstention
clearly on the record if any action is taken in which you have an actual or
potential personal - financial interest.
Joseph Nastasi
April 27, 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 available as a public document within 15 days unless you file
documentation with the Commission which justifies reconsideration and /or
challenges the 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 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 J. fit
Chai rmarJ