Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout115 LevinsonMr. Hillel S. Levinson 429 W. Allens Lane Philadelphia, PA 19119 Re: #81 -50 -C Dear Mr. Levinson: Findings: STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 ORDER OF THE COMMISSION April 28, 1982 No. 115 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. Allegations: Our own- motion investigation authorized Staff to review the following factual circumstances to determine if any violation of the Ethics Act existed with respect to you as former Managing Director of the City of Philadelphia. 1. That you bargained with the Fraternal Order of Police as the chief negotiator for the City of Philadelphia. 2. That you were hired by the Pennsylvania Health Institute within a few months after leaving the City of Philadelphia. 3. That approximately ten months after you left the City of Philadelphia, you negotiated a contract with Police Health Administration, Inc., a non - profit corporation overseen by leaders of the Fraternal Order of Police, to conduct physicals and stress tests for the Fraternal Order of Police. 1. You acted as Managing Director of the City of Philadelphia through January 4, 1980. 2. While acting as Managing Director, you negotiated labor contracts with the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) which represents police officers employed by the City. These negotiations /arbitration included the award of life - insurance benefits valued at some $1.2 million. Hillel S. Levinson April 28, 1982 Page -2- 4. Upon leaving employment with the City, you obtained employment with the Pennsylvania Health Institute (PHI), and held the post of Business Manager /Director of PHI from February 15, 1980 through April, 1981. 5. While employed with the City, you did not contact PHI regarding employment nor did you interview for a job with PHI until after you left the City's employment. 6. Up through the time you left City employment (January, 1980), PHI had no contract with the City or FOP to provide services. 7. PHI was essentially incorporated to perform medical /physical examinations for corporate executives. 8. While serving with PHI, you solicited the business of the Police Health Administration, Inc., (PHAI) and a contract between PHAI and PHI was executed sometime in September, 1980 whereby PHI would perform physical examinations for PHAI. 9. PHAI is a non - profit subsidiary of Lodge 5 of the FOP overseen by FOP officials and manages, in part, the fringe benefit monies paid by the City to the FOP for its members. 10. You also solicited the business of the Philadelphia Gas Works (PGW) for PHI to perform similar services for PGW employees as described in No. 5 above. 11. While employed with the City, you were not associated with PGW as this was an independent agency /entity in the City's operations. 12. You had no promise of future employment with PHI when you left City employment. Discussion: Our findings reveal no significant evidence upon which to conclude that a violation of the Ethics Act has occurred. Specifically, there is no evidence that Section 3(b) of the Ethics Act has been breached. Section 3(b).of the Act provides that: No person shall offer or give to a public official or public employee or candidate for public office or a member of his immediate family or a business with which he is associated, and no public official or public employee or candidate for public office shall solicit or accept, anything of value, including a gift, loan, political contribution, reward, or promise of future employment based on any understanding that the vote, official action, Hillel S. Levinson April 28, 1982 Page -3- or judgment of the public official or public employee or candidate for public office would be influenced thereby. 65 P.S. 403(b) The evidence here fails to reveal that you were promised or accepted future employment with PHI in exchange for any official vote, conduct, etc. While the life- insurance - benefit package referred to in No. 2 above may have been the subject of significant dispute, these benefits were apparently bargained for by the City - FOP and have no direct connection to your subsequent employment with PHI. Likewise, the fact that you were employed by PHI after leaving the City does not violate the Ethics Act, simply because PHI subsequently contracted with the FOP. Even assuming the FOP used City -paid- benefit funds to underwrite this contract, your negotiations on behalf of PHI as its employee to secure the FOP business does not amount to a violation of Section 3(e)of the Ethics Act. Under Section 3(e), 65 P.S. 403(e), a former public employee /public official is precluded from "representing" a person before the governmental body with which the public employee /official was associated for one year after leaving public service. The governmental body with which you were associated was the City of Philadelphia. Negotiating with or representing your new employer (PHI) before the FOP to secure the FOP's business does not equate with negotiating with the City which would be prohibited for the one -year period. Finally, due to the independent nature of PGW in relation to the City, we cannot conclude that securing the business of PGW for PHI would constitute prohibited activity. Conclusion: Under the circumstances present and the facts found, there has been no violation 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 become available as a public document within 15 days unless you file documentation with the Commission which justifies reconsideration 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. Hillel S. Levinson April 28, 1982 Page -4- 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, P'aul J. Chairma