Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout215 BeardellMr. Louis Beardell Councilman 233 W. Warren Street Dunmore, PA 18512 Re: File No. 82 -69 -C Dear Mr. Beardell: STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 ORDER OF THE COMMISSION July 25, 1983 Order No. 215 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 are as follows: I. Allegation: That as a Councilman in Dunmore you engage in business with the Borough engineer and trade as Turnpike Garage where you regularly do business with individuals, such as Swinick Contracting and Development Company, who you regulate and whose plans you approve(d). A. Findings: 1. You currently serve as a Council member in Dunmore Borough and as such are a "public official" subject to the Ethics Act. 2. You own and operate a business /repair garage known as the Turnpike Garage, hereinafter, the Garage. 3. A local businessman and developer, Mr. Cal Swinick, hereinafter Swinick, has been a customer of the Garage for many years, including some years while your father operated the Garage. 4. On occasion it has been necessary for the Borough Council to review and decide upon permit applications, plans, etc. that may be submitted on behalf of or by Swinick in the course of his business. Louis Beardell July 25, 1983 Page 2 5. There is no evidence to support the allegation that you, as a Council member, have been given, offered or accepted anything of value, including the "business" of Swinick (See No. 3 above) on the understanding that your official judgment or actions would be influenced thereby. 6. There is no evidence to support the allegation that your official judgment or actions were influenced by the fact that Swinick utlilized the services of the Garage. B. Discussion: As a "public official" your conduct must conform to the requirement of the Ethics Act, including Section 3(b) which provides that: No person shall offer or give to a public official or public employee or candidate for public office or a member of his immediate family or a business with which he is associated, and no public official or public employee or candidate for public office shall solicit or accept, anything of value, including a gift, loan, political contribution, reward, or promise of future employment based on any understanding that the vote, official action, or judgment of the public official or public - employee or candidate for public office would be influenced thereby. 65 P.S. 403(b). On the facts as found above we find no evidence to support the allegation that there has been a violation of Section 3(b) of the Ethics Act. The Ethics Act was not designed to prevent public officials from engaging in normal business or professional activities. However, should you have any questions as to your duties and obligations under the Ethics Act in any specific case which might arise in the future, refer to the mechanism for requesting an Opinion /Advice from the State Ethics Commission. See Section 7 of the Ethics Act, 65 P.S. 407. Also you should be alert to the ruling in Sowers, 80 -050 (copy attached), which relates to situations where you might seek work or be asked to do work or can reasonably expect to be asked to do or seek work with a developer or person on the specific project or development which might be subject to your review as a public official. to such cases abstention may be required. But in the case before us at present, we find no reason under the Ethics Act to exclude you from either doing business with Swinick or participating as a Council member on Swinick projects. Louis Beardell July 25, 1983 Page 3 C. Conclusion: There is no violation of the Ethics Act under the circumstances present here and the facts as found above. 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 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 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). Sincerely, PJS /jc Atts. Paul J. /Sfnith Chairma