Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout146 ReisingerMrs. Margaret Reisinger West Perry School Director R. D. #1 Landisburg, PA 17040 Re: 82 -56 -C STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 ORDER OF THE COMMISSION No. 146 July 22, 1982 Dear Mrs. Reisinger: 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 as a Director in West Perry School District, you are employed by a school bus contractor of the District and may vote on issues (the school budget, in general, construction of new schools, closing of schools, bus routes, number of drivers, extracurricular activities, etc.) which may directly or indirectly economically benefit your employer and therefore, yourself. II., Findings: 1. You serve as an elected Director in the West Perry School District, hereinafter the District, and as such you are a "public official" subject to the Ethics Act. 2. You are employed by James Stanbaugh as a school -bus driver and Stanbaugh supplies buses to the District. You are not an officer or owner in the Stanbaugh bus business, hereinafter, Stanbaugh. 3. The District contracts with approximately 16 contractors to supply bus service to the District. 4. The District must, from time -to -time, make decisions on school closings, consolidations, extracurricular activities, bus routes, etc. Mrs. Margaret Reisinger July 22, 1982 Page 2 a. Such decision may ultimately and indirectly impact upon the District's bus service and needs. b. Decisions on bus services and needs would be secondary to the basic decision on the items of school closings, consolidations, etc. and you have stated such decision would be made after a Transportation Committee reviewed subsequent needs, made recommendations to the Board and the Board solicited bids or proposals as to the distribution of work among the various bus contractors, including Stanbaugh, your employer. 5. In your capacity as Director you may be asked to and have voted on the general budget and the payment of routine monthly bills, some of which represent commitments for bus contracts and /or payments upon contracts between the District and Stanbaugh. III. Discussion: As a "public official" your conduct is regulated by the Ethics Act, which in Section 3(a) requires that: No public official or public employee shall use his public office or any confidential information received through his holding public office to obtain financial 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, we note that Section 1 of the Ethics Act requires that your "financial interests" should present neither a conflict with nor create the "appearance" of a conflict with the public trust. We begin our review of your activities by noting that Section 3(c) of the Ethics Act is not implicated here, because you are not an owner, director or "holder of stock" in the Stanbaugh bus business. The Commission has previously decided that a Director is "interested" in a bus contract as an employee of the contractor and is disqualified from participating in the awarding of the contract itself. See Watts, 81 -40 -C and Knuth, 80 -14 -C, These disqualifications were directly related to and applied to the contracting processs itself. The Commission, has also applied an abstention requirement where the decision - maker can reasonably expect to benefit as a sub - contractor if a particular plan is approved by the deciding body on which he or she serves. See Sowers, 80 -050. Again, however, abstention was required only in relation to the particular plan or program which was directly related to the potentially beneficial sub - contract. Mrs. Margaret Reisinger July 22, 1982 Page 3 In the,present case, the general question of school closings, extracurricular activitites and bus routes may result in an increased or decreased busing need. This need may or may not be filled by one of 16 contractors, including Stanbaugh. Your participation in the decisions which relate to general items is appropriate. Abstention is required, to avoid any appearance of a conflict with the public trust and your financial interests as an employee of Stanbaugh, only where those general decisions are reduced to a concrete "need" for bus service and the specific question presented is the appropriate contractor to be selected. Likewise, votes on general budget matters on which you may not be able to differentiate the amount appropriated for your particular employer, are not per se in the category where abstention is required. If your employer's contract is acted upon as an individual item in passage of the budget, to avoid any appearance of a conflict with the public trust, abstention would be appropriate as to that item /vote. IV. Conclusion: None of your activities to date violate the Ethics Act or create an appearance of a conflict with the public trust. It is not a violation of Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act for you to discuss and vote upon matters generally relating to the School District budget, school closings, consolidations, and extracurricular activities. Such votes do not create an appearance of a conflict with the public trust and your financial interests as a school -bus driver. Where the School Board is to vote on possible budget items relating specifically to your employer or on the award of the contract to your employer or the award of additonal bus routes to particular contractors (assuming a particular vote to not award new or extra routes to another of the 16 bus contractors might result in Stanbaugh being the only contractor who will get new or additional routes), you should abstain from participation, including disussions and voting. The reason for your abstention should be placed on the public record. Should you need further specific direction on any particular subject matter to be presented to the Board for review and decision, you are urged to ask the State Ethics Commission for such advice on particular matters in advance of such a situation. Mrs. Margaret Reisinger July 22, 1982 Page 4 Our files in this case will remain confidential in accordance with Section 8(i) of the Ethics Act, 65 P.S. 408(a). However, this Order is final and will become available a:; 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, aul J. Chairman"