Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout142 GlowackiRe: 82 -21 -C Dear Mr. Glowacki: are Mr. Robert E. Glowacki, Jr. President, City Council of Erie City Hall Erie, PA 16501 r. STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 ORDER OF THE COMMISSION July 22, 1982 No. 142 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 as President of the City of Erie Council, you have engaged in real estate sales, building and development which conflicts with your role as Council President and as liaison with the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Erie and have voted to condemn property under circumstances where abstention was warranted. II< Findings: 1. You serve as President of the City Council in Erie and as such are a public official subject to the Ethics Act. 2. You also serve as an associate real estate broker with the Glowacki Real Estate Agency, hereinafter the Agency. 3. You are associated with John W. Schaefer in three other enterprises or corporations: John W. Schaefer Land Company, Inc.; John W. Schaefer Builders, Inc.; and Schaefer - Glowacki Partnership. 4. You also served as liaison between the City Council and the Redevelopment Authority in Erie, hereinafter, the Authorty. 5. In relation to the activities and projects of the Authority, City Council was requested and approved a Redevelopment Proposal for the Seventh Year Community Development Program, hereinafter, the Program. The minutes of City Council of July 3, 1981 indicate you made the motion to adopt this resolution. Robert E. Glowacki, Jr. July 22, 1982 Page 2 6. On October 23, 1981 in relation to this Program, City Council voted to make additional land available for development to be known as the French Street Tow�ouse Project (32 units): a. The land to be made available were parcels identified as 117 East 3rd Street and 317 and 319 French Street; b. These parcels were accordingly proposed for condemnation or acquisition through eminent domain proceedings; c. You voted affirmatively on this question. 7. Subsequently, parcels identified as 317 and 319 French Street were amicably acquired by the Authority and the only parcel subject to inclusion in the condemnation process was the parcel located at 117 East 3rd Street. a. Because of a technical problem in deleting the parcels acquired through amicable acquisition and the need to acquire the remaining parcel through eminent domain proceedings, City Council adopted an amendment to the Program on March 5, 1982. b. You voted affirmatively on this amendment. 8. The proposed developer of the Townhouse project is not associated with the Glowacki Real Estate Agency or any of the businesses listed in No. 3 above. 9. You and your Agency presented a proposal to the Authority under its Section 8 Moderate Rehabiliation Program of the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). a. You requested and received advice from the County Solicitor's office regarding your participation in this HUD program and were advised that no conflict existed. b. You do not, as a Councilman, have a vote as to the participation in this HUD program or acceptance of proposals /applications. c. Your proposal related to parcels located at 129 -137 East French Street and the proposed reuse was for four units of "Sec 235 Housing." d. This proposal was not being developed in conjunction with or cooperation with the Program referred to in Findings 5 -8 above. Robert E. Glowacki, Jr. July 22, 1982 Page 3 III. Discussion: As a "public official" you must adhere to the requirements of the Ethics Act. You may not use your office for personal financial gain as prohibited by Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 P.S. 403(a). Your "financial interests" f may not conflict with or appear to conflict with the public trust. In the circumstances present, we find r:o evidence that your interests violate or appear to violate the public trust. The mere fact that you are associated with the Agency (No. 3 above) is insufficient to give rise to any such finding. In relation to your votes on the Program, we find no personal financial "interest" which you may be said to have placed above the public interest. In relation to your proposal (No. 9 above) there is no evidence you have used your office as Councilman to secure approval of same. Without more, we cannot condemn your proposed participation in this HUD program. IV. Conclusion: Under the circumstances present as found and discussed above, your conduct has not violated the Ethics Act nor does it give rise to any appearance of a conflict with the public trust. 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. 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 Chair