Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout201 MillerMr. Lewis Miller Supervisor, Upper Hanover Township Geryville Pike, R.D. Pennsburg, PA 18073 Re: #82 -02 -C Dear Mr. Miller: STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 ORDER OF THE COMMISSION June 17, 1983 Order No. 201 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. The individual allegations, conclusions, and findings on which those conclusions are based as follows: I. Allegation: That you are a Township Supervisor and also an electrical and maintenance contractor; that you have acted upon or delayed action on Township decisions which affect your private interest as an electrical and maintenance contractor and that this violates Section 3(a) and /or (d) of the Ethics Act. A. Findings: 1. You serve as a Supervisor in Upper Hanover Township, hereafter the Township and as such are a "public official" subject to the provisions of the Ethics Act. 2. You are also an electrical contractor and perform such services for persons and facilities within the Township. 3. You have done such work for the Gordon Bauer Construction Company on occassion. 4. When a building is to be constructed within the Township, certain plans must be approved by and permits secured from the Township. 5. Approval of such plans typically occurs after the Township Engineer reviews same and where the County and Township Planning Commission reviews and recommend approval of same and when called upon you voted to approve plans /applications so submitted. Mr. Lewis Miller June 17, 1983 Page 2 6. There is no evidence to support the allegation that any of the work you obtained or did as contractor was secured upon the understanding that your official conduct as a Supervisor was to be influenced thereby. 7. There is no evidence that at the time you participated in official action as a Supervisor in approving plans or permits for a person or business that you engaged as contractor for same or had a reasonable expectation of securing work on such projects, developments subject to said approval or as a result of such approvals or grants. 8. There is nothing in the minutes maintained by the Township for the period of January 1, 1979, to March 28, 1983, to indicate that the allegation cited above is well- founded. B. Discussion: As an elected Supervisor you are a public official and your activities during such tenure must conform to the requirements of the Ethics Act. The most pertinent provisions of the Ethics Act relating to this particular allegation are as follows: Section 1. Purpose. The Legislature hereby declares that public office is a public trust and that any effort to realize personal financial gain through public office other than compensation provided by law is a violation of that trust. In order to strengthen the faith and confidence of the people of the State in their government, the Legislature further declares that the people have a right to be assured that the financial interests of holders of or candidates for public office present neither a conflict nor the appearance of a conflict with the public trust. Because public confidence in government can best be sustained by assuring the people of the impartiality and honesty of public officials, this act shall be liberally construed to promote complete disclosure. 65 P.S. 401. Section 3. Restricted Activities. (a) 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). Mr. Lewis Miller June 17, 1983 Page 3 Under these provisions you must not use your position as Supervisor to benefit your own interests or engage in conduct which presents a conflict or an appearance of a conflict with the public trust. The State Ethics Commission has previously held that a conflict exists when an individual represents two or more persons whose interests are adverse to each other. Alfano, 80 -007. In the present case, it is clear you serve two clients -- the municipality and the private party /developer. This circumstance gives rise to special concerns which will be addressed more fully below. It is sufficient here, however, to also note that this Commission is not inclined to preclude a party serving as a public employee /official from generally engaging in a business or professional endeavor. See Lench, 79 -047 and Sowers, 80 -050. Thus, the mere fact that you serve as a supervisor and also offer your services to private clients is not per se precluded under the Ethics Act. However, in accordance with Section 1 of the Ethics Act your actions as Supervisor must not conflict or appear to conflict with the public trust. You may not use your public office or position to secure benefits for yourself. Additionally, you must observe the standards we established in Sowers, 80 -050, that require a public official or employee to abstain from taking or recommending official action on a particular developer - applicant's plans or submissions where the public official /employee: (1) has worked on these plans or applications; (2) knows he will be asked to perform work for the developer - applicant with respect to the particular plans or application to be reviewed; or (3) has or can reasonably expect to obtain, seek, bid upon or otherwise secure work with respect to the plans or applications to be reviewed. On the facts found as outlined above, we find no evidence that you acted or voted under circumstances which would constitute a violation of the Ethics Act or give rise to an appearance of a conflict of interest with the public trust. We provide the above analysis so that your future conduct continues to conform to the standards set in the Ethics Act and by this Commission. C. Conclusion: Upon the facts as found above no violation of the Ethics Act exists. Mr. Lewis Miller June 17, 1983 Page 4 Our files in this matter 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 be made available as a public document 15 days after service unless you file documentation with the Commission which justifies reconsideration and /or challenges pertinent factual findings. See 51 Pa. Code 2.38. During this 15 -day period, no one, including the Respondent, unless he waives his right to challenge t -seder, 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 /na By the Commission, aul J. ,Saith Chairma