HomeMy WebLinkAbout139 SmithOrville Smith
R.D. #1
Imler, PA 16655
Re: 82 -20 -C
Dear Mr. Smith:
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120
July 21, 1982
ORDER OF THE COMMISSION
No. 139
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
review of these allegations and finds no reason to proceed further.
I. Allegation: That you, an officer and member of the Board of Directors of
the Municipal Authority working in concert with Mrs. Barefoot used the
Authority and the State Ethics Commission to promote the career of attorney
Ling. That Mr. Ling and you had access to information to present a complaint
to the State Ethics Commission that gave the appearance of greater importance
than the facts actually supported.
Findings: 1. The importance of information provided to the State Ethics
Commission is never determined by the name or position of the complainant or
the respondent.
2. The weight given to the facts of any investigation is solely decided
by those facts and their relevancy to the alleged violations of Act 170.
3. There is no evidence that you obtained personal financial gain from
your office.
Discussion: In accordance with the Ethics Act, the State Ethics Commission
has a policy not to reveal the name of any person who has submitted a
complaint to the Commission. This order is being given to resolve the issues
raised without an admission that you were at any time a complainant to this
commission.
Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act prohibits a public official or employee
from using his or her office or confidential information of that office for
financial gain other than provided by law.
Orville Smith
July 21, 1982
Page 2
A violation of Section 3(a) would require evidence that you received
personal financial gain from the use of your office or confidential
information obtained in that office. There is no evidence that this occured.
The State Ethics Commission is responsible for determining the importance
and relevancy of facts in its investigations.
Finally, if a complainant provides information which he or she knows to
be false as set forth in Section 9(e) of the Ethics Act, there would be a
violation of Act 170. There is no evidence of same in this case.
Conclusion: You have not violated the Ethics Act, (Act 170 -1978) and the
Commission will take no further action in this case.
Our file 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 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 that $1000 or imprisoned
for not more than one year or both, see 65 P.S. 409(e).
PJS /na
Sincerely,
t;1 uA.(
aul JO mith
Chairman
i