HomeMy WebLinkAbout337 HarleyMr. John F. Harley
R. D. #2
Boyertown, PA 19512
Re: No. 83 -28 -C
Dear Mr. Harley:
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120
ORDER OF THE COMMISSION
August 30, 1984
Order No. 337
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 you, a Zoning and Permits Officer of Douglass Township,
Berks County, are violating Sections 3(a) and or Section 1 of the Ethics Act,
65 P.S. 403(a) and 401 respectively, by selling real estate in the Township
while serving as the Zoning and Permits Officer.
A. Findings:
1. You served as Zoning and Permits Officer for Douglass Township,
hereinafter, the Township, from November, 1976 to January, 1984.
2. You have been licensed to sell real estate since 1969 and you presently
work out of the office of Agnes Canning Real Estate as an agent.
3. As Zoning and Permits Officer you were, as of your re- appointment as same,
entitled to 40% of the zoning permit fees assessed.
a. You estimate that an average permit would yield a
$20 - 25 commission to you.
b. You estimate that the highest commission you received during your
years of service as Zoning Officer was $1,000 but in the most recent
years this total was closer to $500 per year.
John F. Harley August 30, 1984
Page 2
4. During the period you served as Township Zoning and Permits Officer, you
also acted as a real estate agent.
a. In your role as agent you represented clients with property
both in and outside the Township.
b. However, because the Township is small and there is little, if
any, land available for business or residential development, you have
never engaged in buying or selling property in the Township for your
personal profit as owner of same.
c. You estimate that your total commissions as a real estate agent
for property in and outside the Township in 1983 was 5700.
d. You did represent one client, a Mrs. Esther McElroy, with respect
to the sale of her property within the Township for subdivision
purposes.
e. There is no evidence that this property or subdivision mentioned
in (d) abova was subject to your review and final approval as Zoning
and Permits Officer for the Township; that you used your position in
the Township to secure any approvals needed for this subdivision; or
that you used your position as Zoning and Permits Officer or
confidential information obtained through this position to your own
benefit with respect to said sale or agency.
B. Discussion: As Zoning and Permits Officer you were a public official or
public emp oyee and as such your conduct was subject to the provisions of the
Ethics Act. In particular, your conduct was governed by 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).
In the present case we have found no evidence to establish that as Zoning
and Permits Officer you used your office or confidential information for your
own gain. Thus, no violation of Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act has been
found.
John F. Harley
Page 3
HBC /jc
August 30, 1984
We do note, however, that in prior Opinions the Commission has stated
that where the official serves as a real estate agent and as Planner, Zoning
Officer and Director of Economic Development within a municipality an
appearance of a conflict of interest to be avoided pursuant to Section 1 of
the Ethics Act arises. See Norris, 80 -053. In Norris we addressed the
situation when the officer was i vn olved in duties of such a pervasive nature
with regulation of the property and buildings within the municipality that he
should refrain from acting as agent for property within the municipality while
serving in these capacities.
The role you played as Zoning and Permits Officer, we assume is that
described in part in the Municipalities Planning Code, 53 P.S. 10614. As
such, you must issue permits and administer the Township's Zoning Ordinance
in accordance with its literal terms. Your authority and discretion in this
capacity is limited and not as pervasive as that which we reviewed in Norris.
In addition, the amount of commissions you derived from the Township's
permit and your real estate business was small. You are no longer serving as
Township Zoning and Permit Officer and as such, under all these circumstances
we cannot conclude that your activity in serving as Zoning and Permits Officer
and engaging in business as a real estate agent gave rise to an appearance of
a conflict with the public trust.
C. Conclusion: Under the facts and circumstances outlined above, your
conduct did not violate Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act nor did your financial
interests appear to conflict with the public trust.
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).
By the
rt B. Conner
Chairman