Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout145 BuchoveckyMr. John Buchovecky Walnut Drive Conneaut Lake, PA 16316 Re: 82 -26 -C (2 -2) Dear Mr. Buchovecky: STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 CRDER OF THE COMMISSION July 22, 1982 No, 145 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 actions and finds no violation of Act 170. I. Allegation: That you serve as Superintendent of the Conneaut School District and your wife is employed by Gelvin, Jackson and Starr of Meadville, PA, the company which wrote the contract for fire insurance for the Alice L. Schafer School in Linesville part of the Conneaut School District. II. Findings: 1. You served as Assistant Superintendent of the Conneaut Lake School District from 1976 to 1978 when you assumed the post of Superintendent of the School District and as Superintendent, you were a "public employee" covered by the Ethics Act. 2. Your wife, who has 20 years of experience in the insurance field, obtained employment with the Meadville office of Gelvin, Jackson & Starr, hereinafter Gelvin. a. Your wife, Dolores, works as a receptionist, cashier, switchboard operator and typist for Gelvin. b. Although she is a licensed insurance agent, Dolores has never acted as an agent for Gelvin and she was not involved with the handling of contracts with the School District except as listed in (a) immediately above. Mr. John Buchovecky July 22, 1982 Page 2 3. The Scfi ool District has had insurance coverage secured by Gelvin as follows: a. In July, 1976 the School Board awarded a three -year contract to Gelvin after receiving quotes from interested companies for multi -peril comprehensive automobile liability, catastrophe excess "umbrella" liability and Board of Education Indemnity coverage. b. In 1979, the Board authorized the renewal of the above contracts with Gelvin as to general liability and auto liability. No new quotes were sought because the District's business manager was ill at the time of the renewal. c. In 1980, the new business manager did not have sufficient time prior to the annual renewal date to request or receive new quotes from insurance companies so prior policies were continued for the risks listed in (b) above by the Board, Gelvin was also approved with your recommendation as agent for providing Athletic and Student Insurance. d. In 1981, quotes were solicited by the District's business manager for all insurance programs and while Gelvin was not the low bidder, the Board voted on August 12, 1981 to retain Gelvin as agent on the District's property and liability insurance policies because the District was then involved in a possible settlement of a fire insurance claim on one school building which Gelvin was processing. e. In 1982, all insurance contracts were awarded after a sealed bidding process and Gelvin was awarded the general liability insurance contract as the lowest bidder. 4. Your wife's retention and salary as an employee of Gelvin was not based upon or related to the decisions of the School Board to contract with Gelvin and she has not and does not receive commissions or "any portion of the commissions Gelvin derives from said contracts with the School District. Mr. John Buchovecky July 22, 1982 Page 3 III. Discpssion: As the Superintendent of the Conneaut Lake School District you were a "public employee" subject to the Ethics Act. As such your conduct must conform to the requirements of the Ethics Act. Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act states: No public official or public employee shall use his public office or any confidential information received through his holding public office to obtain fianancial gain other than compensation provided by law for himself, a member of his immediate family, or a business with which he is associated. 65 P.S. 403(a) In addition, Section 1 of the Ethics Act requires that your "financial interests" must not conflict with nor present an appearance of a conflict with the public trust. In the present case, we find two facts significant and compelling in leading us to conclude that your conduct did not violate Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act. First, we note that you did not hold the final authority to vote on the award of or the renewal of the School District's policies with Gelvin. Second, the position your wife held with Gelvin was that of a mere employee whose job and salary were not dependent upon the Gelvin School District policies. Although she was "associated with" Gelvin as that term is defined in the Ethics Act and as used in Section 3(a), she was certainly not even in the middle- management posture that was involved in Knox, 81 -009. In Knox two school board directors were disqualified from voting on a tax - dispute settlement question between their employer and their school district. Under these circumstances, we do not fault the fact that the School District contracted with Gelvin and renewed these policies under Section 3(a). This conclusion is buttressed by the award and renewal to Gelvin in 1980 and 1981 was made under the circumstances as set forth in No. 3(c) and (d) above and_ the fact that bids were involved in the 1982 contracting process. However, as Superintendent you did participate in recommending retention of Gelvin, at least as set forth in No. 3(c) above, and this action may give rise to the allegation that your "financial interests," i.e. your wife's job, are being favored over the public's interest. In the circumstances presented here we believe the connection between your wife's job with Gelvin and your position as Superintendent does not appear to violate the public trust even given these recommendations. Mr. John Buchovecky July 22, 1982 Page 4 IV. Conclusion: Under these circumstances and upon the facts as found above, we find noiviolation of the Ethics Act and that these particular facts and circumstances did not create the 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 J. smith Cha i rma'n