Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout276 KlingermanMr. David W. Klingerman School Board Member Bloomsburg Area School District R. D. #3 Bloomsburg, PA 17815 Re: No. 83 -04 -C Dear Mr. Klingerman: STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 ORDER OF THE COMMISSION January 12, 1984 Order No. 276 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 follows: I. Allegation: That you, as a school board member in the Bloomsburg Area School District participated in board decisions on transportation, while you of. your family were directly involved in the transportation activities of the district by having bus contracts with that district and that this violates Section 3 (a) of the Ethics Act. A. Findings: 1. You served as a member of the Bloomsburg Area School Board (hereinafter School Board) in the Bloomsburg Area School District and as such are a public official subject to the provisions of the State Ethics Act. 2. You and your brother own a bus transportation company which holds a contract with the Bloomsburg Area School District (hereinafter the School District). David W. Klingerman January 12, 1984 Page 2 3. Your company along with four or five other contractors annually submits proposals to the School District. a. You and the other contractors use the "STATE SCHOOL BUS FORMULA" in submitting your proposals. b. No bids are required by state law or the Public School Code as long as this formula is used. c. These contracts are awarded at a public meeting of the School Board. d. Minutes of the School Board for 1981, 1982 and 1983 show that you abstained from participating in decisions on school bus contracts. 4. On November 9, 1982, you chaired a School Board committee meeting to hear the complaint of Mr. and Mrs. John Troychock about the schedule of the bus used by their daughter. a. The committee consisted of you, Mr. Stephen Hebbard and Mr. Robert Kelly - all members of the School Board. b. Superintendent of Schools Alex Dubil and Business Manager Claude Renninger also attended the meeting. c. At a School Board meeting on December 6, 1982, Mr. Hebbard gave a report about the complaint and the meeting held to resolve it. d. On December 6, 1982, Mr. Robert Kelly wrote to Mr. and Mrs. Troychock and explained the school hoard position noting that the Board had offered an alternative which would allow the Troychock daughter to ride a different bus and reduce travel time. B. Discussion: As a public official you must conform your conduct to the requirements of the Ethics Act and in particular must observe the provisions of Section 3(a) which states: 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). David W. Kl ingerman January 12, 1984 Page 3 There is no evidence that you have violated Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act. Your proposals for bus contracts are submitted in accordance with the "state school bus formula" and normal practice of the School Board. You have no role in establishing this formula and you abstain from School Board actions on the review and award of contracts for transportation. In addition, all contracts are awarded at a public meeting. The general questions raised in this complaint were the subject of Advice No. 82 -599 issued to Attorney Charles B. Pursel, who had requested advice on your behalf. There was nothing disclosed by this investigation which contradicted the information provided in that request. Further, there is no evidence that you acted inconsistently with the Advice issued. In this respect the Advice issued stands as a complete defense to enforcement proceedings initiated by this Commission relative to the issues raised, facts presented and actions taken in reliance upon that Advice. However, the specific issues raised in this complaint are slightly different from the general questions addressed in the Advice issued, but we nevertheless find no violation of the Ethics Act with respect to your activities. While you participated in the meeting about the complaint of Mr. and Mrs. Troychock, this meeting did not relate to School Board contracts, payments or any action that could be reasonably expected to lead to the award of a new transportation contract or a change in the existing transportation contracts. We must also consider Section 1 of the Ethics Act which states that a public official should avoid both a conflict and the appearance of a conflict of interest. We find that your participation in the meeting to resolve the complaint did not create the appearance of a conflict of interest because this information was made available to the public by a report to the School Board at a public meeting and did not relate to the transportation contracts. You have also avoided the appearance of a conflict of interest with the public trust by abstaining from School Board decisions on transportation matters. C. Conclusion: Your participation in a School Board committee meeting to resolve a complaint about the bus schedule of one of the students neither violated the Ethics Act nor created the appearance of a conflict of interest because it did not affect your contracts with the School Board nor present a reasonable possibility that it would affect these contracts. In addition, you abstained from School Board decisions on the consideration and award of busing contracts. David W. Klingerman January 12, 1984 Page 4 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 (defined as mailing) 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 $1,000 or imprisoned for not more than one year or both, see 65 P.S. 409(e). PJS /jc By the Commission, �GG�iv� L Paul J Smith Chairman