Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout334 HatfieldMr. E. Samuel Hatfield Elm Drive Kittanning, PA 16201 Re: No. 83 -156 -C Dear Mr. Hatfield: STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 ORDER OF THE COMMISSION August 30, 1984 Order No. 334 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 Director in the Armstrong School District you participated in and negotiated a contract with the Armstrong Education Association (AEA) of which a member of your family is a member, thereby insuring wage, salary and job security benefits for this member in violation of Section 3(a) or Section 1 of the Ethics Act, 65 P.S. 403(a) and 401 respectively. A. Findings: 1. You served as a Director in the Armstrong School District for four years with your term of office expiring in December, 1983. As an elected public official you were subject to the provisions of the Ethics Act. 2. The Armstrong Education Association (AEA) is the exclusive representative of the teachers in the Armstrong School District for the purpose of collective bargaining with respect to wages, hours, terms and conditions of employment under Act 195. The AEA was certified on December 14, 1970. 3. In 1983, the AEA and the Armstrong School District, hereinafter the District or ASD, had a collective bargaining agreement in place which had been in effect from March 18, 1982 and would expire June 30, 1984. a. Under the terms of this Agreement and the Public School Code, re- negotiation of this agreement was not required until 180 days prior to the expiration date of the contract. E. Samuel Hatfield August 30, 1984 Page 2 b. Early contract negotiations were requested, however, by letter from AEA President Annabella Halas dated June 16, 1983 to the ASD Board. c. The ASO Board considered this request for early re- negotiation at a work session on June 16, 1983. d. By letter from ASD Board Secretary Ida Westwood dated June 17, 1983, the Board responded to this request (See, c, above) and rejected same, stating it was more proper for the ASD Board which was to assume office in December, 1983 to deal with re- negotiation of this contract. 4. During 1983 a group of citizens concerned with the administration of ASD were successful in organizing and electing some of their group to the ASD Board. a. As a result of the 1983 elections and events, six of the nine ASD Board members whose terms expired on December 31, 1983 would be replaced. b. Three of the current Board members lost the election for nomination in the May, 1983 primary and three other incumbent members chose not to run for re- election. c. You were defeated in your bid for re- election in the 1983 primary. d. This citizens' group had been publicly vocal during the campaign with respect to their position that salary and benefit payments to and demands of teachers and school expenses should be reduced. 5. Following the initial refusal of the ASD Board to enter into early contract negotiations as set forth above (see No. 3, d) the ASD Board decided to open negotiations with AEA. a. The records of ASD indicate that at the August 11, 1983 work session of the ASD Board a consensus was reached to meet with the teachers after the September 8, 1983 Board meeting to discuss a new contract. You were present and in favor of commencing early negotiations. b. The AEA was notified by letter dated August 12, 1983 that the Board would meet with the teachers on September 8, 1983. c. On September 8, 1983 the initial negotiation meeting between the AEA and the School Board was held. You were present at this session. d. You were not a member of the negotiating team of ASD although as President of the ASD Board, you appointed members of the ASD negotiating team. E. Samuel Hatfield Page 3 August 30, 1984 e. Members of the ASD negotiating team were Ralph Craig, Jr., Edward Bernet and Peter Cantenese. f. Subsequent to September 8, 1983 negotiation sessions were held on September 13, 1983 and September 16, 1983 but you did not attend or participate in same. g. You state that the reason for the decision of the ASD Board to open these negotiations early after initially declining to do so was a desire to avoid a teachers' strike and to secure "peace" with the AEA especially in light of AEA's fears that the incoming Board of the ASD would be hostile to AEA demands and concerns. See No. 4 above. 6. As a result of these early re- negotiation sessions, a tentative agreement was reached at the September 16, 1983 session. a. This agreement was approved by AEA. b. This agreement was presented to the full ASD Board for approval at a special meeting held on September 22, 1983. 1). A motion by Craig, seconded by Chestnut to adopt the resolution entitled "Collective Bargaining Agreement" between the Board of School Directors of ASD and the AEA effective September 1, 1983 to June 30, 1986 was made. 2). A motion by Smith, seconded by Morrow to table the resolution for further study was also made. Motion was defeated by a 5 to 3 vote. You voted with the majority. 3). A vote was taken on the Craig motion to accept the agreement and this motion passed by a 5 to 3 vote. You voted with the majority. 7. Your wife, Lois Hatfield, is employed as a secondary teacher in the District and is a member of the AEA. 8. You and your wife live in the same household and her income is used to share living expenses, etc. 9. Your wife did not receive any special considerations /benefits from the contract negotiated and agreed to on September 22, 1983. E. Samuel Hatfield Page 4 August 30, 1984 B. Discussion: As an elected member of the ASD Board, you were a public official and your conduct as such was subject to the Ethics Act. The requirements of the Ethics Act most applicable here include Section 3(a) and Section 1, reprinted below for ease of reference: 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). 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. This Commission has recently ruled that a School Board Director should abstain from voting on a contract with a union which represents a member of his immediate family where the family member would be individually and specifically benefitted in a manner or extent different from the benefit accruing to all persons represented by the Union. See Krier, 84 -002 and Blaney, 84 -003. Having found that your wife will not be benefitted in a manner different or unique, we must, under these circumstances and precedent, conclude that no violation of Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act exists. E. Samuel Hatfield Page 5 However, in both Krier and Blaney, we did conclude that a Director in a situation similar to yours should refrain from participating in the negotiation sessions with the union. In your case, you attended one session (See No., 5,c, above). This attendance may give rise to the appearance of a conflict with the public trust and should have been avoided, if for no other reason than to assure the public, as we stated in Krier and Blaney, that no confidential information relating to the negotiations was transmitted from you as a Board member to the Union through your wife. However, because there is no evidence that such information was transmitted and because you are no longer on the Board or in a position where this situation is likely to recur, we will undertake no further review with respect to your attendance at this initial negotiating session. C. Conclusion: Under these facts and circumstances there is no violation of Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act and no need to further consider your actions with respect to your attendance at the September 8, 1983 negotiating session in light of Section 1 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 — r , 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). HBC /jc By the C mmi Herb B. Conner Chairman August 30, 1984