HomeMy WebLinkAbout133 WattsMr. Robert K. Watts
441 Cameron Street
Marysville, PA 17055
Re: #82- 07- C(1 -3)
Dear Mr. Watts:
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120
ORDER OF THE COMMISSION
July 12, 1982
No. 133
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 despite a Commission Order, you continue to participate
in transportation decisions while being employed by the firm holding a
transportation contract with the district; specifically on January 11, 1982,
you voted to approve the employment of Mr. Ronald Rice and Jane Miller as bus
drivers.
Findings:
1. You are a School Director on the Susquenita School Board and as such are a
public official under the terms of Act 170.
2. On June 25, 1981, the Commission issued an Order which is incorporated
herein by reference and which stated that you are prohibited from
participating in discussions or actions leading to transportation decisions or
contracts of the Susquenita School District." The contracts referred to are
transportation contracts.
3. At the time of that Order and currently, you drive a bus for a firm
holding a transportation contract with your School District.
4. The January 11, 1982 minutes of the School Board show that you made a
motion recommending Mr. Rice as a bus driver and voted on that motion; and you
agree that you also participated in the decision on the hiring of Jane Miller.
Discussion: Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act prohibits public officials and
public employees from using their office or confidential information in that
office for receiving personal financial gain other than that legally allowed
by their office or position.
Section 3(d) allows the Commission to consider other conflicts of
interest; Section 1 of the Ethics Act requires that public officials comport
themselves in a manner that would assure the public that their activities
present neither a conflict of interest nor the appearance of a conflict of .
interest with the public trust.
Mr. Robert K. Watts Page -2-
July 12, 1982
There is no evidence that you are receiving personal financial gain from
these actions and therefore, no violation of Section 3(a) can be found. There
is no actual conflict in your being employed by the school bus contractor and
serving as a member of the School Board.
However, there is a limited circumstance in which the public might
perceive that your participation in approval of individual drivers might
constitute an appearance of a conflict of interest. This instance would be
where you might be within the group of applicants being considered for
approval for employment. In such a case, where you are one of the five
applicants, for example, and you exercise your vote to reject the other four
applicants, you may be viewed as essentially approving your own appointment by
default, as you would be the only candidate remaining. Under these
circumstances, you should abstain from participating and voting on the
candidates for appointment /employment as bus driver.
There is no evidence of an actual violation of Act 170 but the appearance
of a conflict of interest can be avoided by full public disclosure of your
interest as a driver in the School District and abstaining from voting on
individual driver appointments when you may be included in the group of
applicants being considered for employment. Since receiving our letter on
this allegation, you have stopped participating in all matters relating to
school -bus operators and this is commendable.
Conclusion: There is no violation of Sections 3(a) or 3(d) of the Ethics Act
and there will be no appearance of a conflict of interest if you either
continue to abstain from matters relating to school -bus operators where you
may be within the group of applicants being considered and you should
nevertheless be certain that the public record includes a statement from you
that you are employed by the transportation contractor as the basis for such
abstention .
Our files in this case will remain confidential in accordance with
Section 3(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 — der°,
may violate this confidentiality by releasing, discussing or circulating this
Order.
Any person who violates the confidentiality of a Commisssion 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,
aul J. meth
Chairman