Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout297 MoniotMr. Daniel Moniot 215 Blaze Drive Glenshaw, PA 15116 Re: No. 83 -137 -C Dear Mr. Moniot: STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 ORDER OF THE COMMISSION April 13, 1984 Order No. 297 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: 1. Allegation: That you admitted or claimed responsibility for a State Ethics Commission investigation regarding Louis T. Cherpes and publicly divulged that an investigation by the State Ethics Commission was pending as to this individual, thereby violating Section 9(e) of the Ethics Act, 65 P.S. 409(e). A. Findings: 1. The State Ethics Commission intiated a confidential investigation into whether the actions of former Ross Township Commissioner Louis T. Cherpes regarding the proposed Ross Park Center violated the Ethics Act because the Commission received a complaint on January 25, 1982 regarding Cherpes' activities and this investigation concluded with the issuance of the Order of the State Ethics Commission, No. 171 on August 22, 1983. 2. During the time of that investigation, you served as Chairman of the Ross Township Republican Committee. Daniel Moniot April 13, 1984 Page 2 3. Questions surrounding the conduct of Louis T. Cherpes' conduct were raised in public meetings of the Ross Township Commissioners as well as reported by the press. 4.a. Questions surrounding the conduct of Ross Township Commissioner Charles Earnest with respect to his votes on the Ross Park Center in Ross Township, hereinafter, the Township, were also raised and reported in the press and other news media and the State Ethics Commission also conducted a confidential investigation into whether his actions violated the Ethics Act. b. This investigation concluded with the issuance of the Order of State Ethics Commission No. 265 on December 21, 1983. 5, As a result of r?peated media coverage attention surrounding the actions of Ross Township Commissioners Louis T. Cherpes and Charles Earnest in connection with Ross Park Center, the Republican Committee discussed these actions at its monthly meetings in January, 1983. a. At that meeting the Committee voted to write to the State Ethics Commission to request an investigation of the activities of both men. b. You wrote a letter to the State Ethics Commission dated January 18, 1983 requesting an investigation of possible conflicts of interest involving both Cherpes and Earnest. The State Ethics Commission received that letter on January 27, 1983. c. Attached to your letter were two newspaper articles that appeared in the Pittsburgh Post- Gazette and Press that expressed the basis for the concern of the Committee. d. The letter of the Committee indicated that a request for an investigation had not been made prior to January 18, 1983 with respect to the activities of Mr. Cherpes (a Democrat) and until the activities of Mr. Earnest (a Republican) were questioned because the motivation of the Commitee as being partisan might be raised or placed in issue. 6. Subsequent to January 27, 1983 when the State Ethics Commission received the letter of the Committee, you received a telephone call from State Ethics Commission Executive Director Edward Seladones, who explained the complaint process and investigative procedures under the Ethics Act. a. Part of the investigative process under the Ethics Act is dictated by Section 8(a) of the Act which states that upon a complaint signed under penalty of perjury the Commission shall investigate any alleged violation of the Ethics Act. Daniel Moniot April 13, 1984 Page 3 b. You relayed that information to the members of the Ross Township Republican Committee at their April, 1983 meeting. c. No member of the Committee would sign a complaint and subsequently your committee dropped the entire matter. d. According to the investigative procedures of the State Ethics Commission, if a person files a sworn complaint alleging violations of the Ethics Act, the complaint is acknowledged by way of letter from Edward M. Seladones, State Ethics Commission Executive Director, and the complainant is directly advised of the confidentiality surrounding the investigation process pursuant to Section 8(a) of the Ethics Act. 7. Upon examination of those newspaper articles which pertain to the allegations of violation of the Ethics Act by Louis Cherpes, we find the following: a. 11/25/81 - Article appearing in the Pittsburgh Press reviews Cherpes' association with developer Frank Nascone. b. 12/1/81 - Article appearing in the Pittsburgh Post - Gazette refers to Cherpes' votes in favor of the proposed mall as a conflict of interest. c. 12/4/81 - Editorial appearing in the North Hills News Record alleges a conflict of interest involving Cherpes. d. Numerous articles throughout 1982 appeared in the Pittsburgh Post - Gazette, Press and North Hills News Record and discussed Cherpes' activities and an alleged conflict of interest. e. 1/19/83 - Article appearing in the Pittsburgh Post- Gazette, authored by Linda Guydon, quotes you as saying the Ross Township Republican Committee requested the State Ethics Commission to investigate Cherpes and Earnest. (1.) You stated a copy of the letter sent to the State Ethics Commission was sent to Earnest but not to Cherpes. (2.) You did not know of or discuss any of the details of the State Ethics Commission investigation. Daniel Moniot April 13, 1984 Page 4 f. 1/28/83 - Article appearing in the North Hills, authored by Marie Donahue, quotes you as stating the Ross Township Republican Committee voted January 13, 1983 to send a request to the State Ethics Commission for an investigation into dealings of Cherpes and Earnest with Ross Park Center developer Frank Nascone. (1.) The article stated the Republican Committee's additional request for a review of Cherpes' dealings with Nascone was a a by- product of their concern over Earnest's conduct. (2.) The article also indicated that newspaper articles pertaining to Cherpes' dealings had accompanied the letter sent to the State Ethics Commission. g. 8/25/83 - Associated Press wire service article appearing in the St. Mary's Daily Press stated two Ross Township residents had requested an investigation of Cherpes' activities with respect to the Ross Park Center be undertaken by the State Ethics Commission. h. 8/25/83 - Article appearing in the Pittsburgh Post - Gazette, authored by Linda Guydon, stated both Thomas Isaly, former President of the McIntyre Civic Association, and Ross Township Republican Chairman Dan Moniot had requested a probe of Cherpes' activities. 8. The Ross Township Republican Committee considered requesting an investigation into Cherpes' actions when these actions were reported in the newspapers in 1981 and 1982 but no request was made at that time because the Committee feared such a move would be viewed as purely political. See no. 5, d above. 9. You revealed no details of any investigation of this Commission, you were not contacted by this Commission with regard to an investigation of Louis Cherpes and revealed only that the Ross Township Republican Committee had written to the State Ethics Commission as set forth above (See No. 4). B. Discussion: The Ethics Act requires that the investigative process under the Act be conducted in a confidential manner as set forth in Section 8(a) as follows: Daniel Moniot April 13, 1984 Page 5 Section 8. Investiga tions by the Commission. (a) Upon a complaint signed under penalty of perjury by any person or upon its own motion, the commission shall investigate any alleged violation of this act. All commission proceedings and records relating to an investigation shall be confidential until a final determination is made by the commission. The executive director shall notify any person under investigation by the commission of the investigation and of the nature of the alleged violation within five days of the commencement of the investigation. Within 15 days of the filing of a sworn complaint by a person alleging a violation, and every 30 days thereafter until the matter is terminated, the executive director shall notify the complainant of the action taken to date by the commission together with the reasons for such action or nonaction. 65 P.S. 408(a). There are penalties to be applied to any "person" who violates this confidentiality contained in pertinent portions of Section 9(e) of the Act as follows: Section 9. Penalties. (e) Any person who violates the confidentiality of a commission proceeding pursuant to Section 8, is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned for not more one year, or be both fined and imprisoned...65 P.S. 409(e) Thus, it is clear that the "confidentiality of a commission proceeding" must be maintained. The question in this case is whether you personally and intentionally violated these provisions of the Ethics Act. Initially, we note that you were not advised of the applicability of such confidentiality requirements. See Finding No. 6 above. Consequently, it is not clear that you were aware of or bound by the limits of confidentiality expressed in Section 8(a) of the Ethics Act. Daniel Mania April 13, 1984 Page 6 Likewise, it is clear that the statements you made regarding the concerns of the Ross Township Republican Committee were general in nature and did not detail the course or content of any investigation commenced by this Commission. Indeed, neither you nor your Committee according to your statements and our findings herein were involved in such an investigation. General expressions of concern, and even revelation that a request for investigation will be made do not breach the confidentiality required by Section 8(a) of the Act. This is particularly true where, these concerns and revelations occur before the individual expressing the concern presents a sworn complaint and, as here, where that person never, in fact, becomes involved as a complainant, witness or informant with respect to a complaint commenced by this Commission. A citizen or group must have the ability to express their concerns to this Commission in circumstances such as this without calling their acts into question under Section 8(a) or 9(e) of the Ethics Act. To rule otherwise would require an unduly narrow reading of the Ethics Act and unreasonably restrict important rights of free speech and the press. C. Conclusion: Under the facts as found above and discussed herein, you have not violated Section 8(a) or 9(e) of the Ethics Act. 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, Paul J( /Smith Chairman