Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout338 RupinskiCharles Rupinski, Councilman North Braddock Borough 1328 Erma Street North Braddock, PA 15104 RE: File No. 83 -148 -C Dear Mr. Rupinski: STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 ORDER OF THE COMMISSION August 30, 1984 Order No. 338 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 the Borough of North Braddock, you violated the Ethics Act by using your public office to vote for hiring your son as an employee of the Borough's Street Department, thereby violating Section 3(a) and 1 of the Ethics Act. A. Findings: 1. You currently serve as a member of Council in North Braddock Borough, hereinafter the Borough, and have so served as a Borough Councilman since January, 1981. As an elected public official, you are subject to the terms and provisions of the Ethics Act. 2. North Braddock Borough assumed the responsibility of collecting trash within the Borough sometime in the latter part of 1982 and purchased and ordered a garbage truck to perform this function. a. Part -time employees were needed to assist the Borough's full -time personnel in this garbage collection task. b. Because the purchased truck arrived earlier than anticipated, it was necessary to hire the part -time worker(s) and they were needed sometime in December, 1982 because none of the Borough workers were skilled in driving this truck. Charles Rupinski, Councilman Page 2 August 30, 1984 c. No advertisements were issued with respect to these part -time jobs, but applications were accepted by the Borough. d. Hiring was to be based upon the Borough's needs and qualifications of the applicant. e. You recommended your son Dennis to be hired based upon his qualifications as a truck driver after the Chairman of the Street Committee asked if you knew of a qualified operator. 3. Your son Dennis reported to work for the Borough on December 20, 1982. a. Your son is not a minor, not dependent upon you, and has not lived in your household for some 10 years. b. Your son Dennis has nearly seven years of experience driving tri -axle trucks as a result of his steel mill employment. c. Dennis reported to work on the authority of the Chairman of the Streets Committee, Councilman Petrusky, in conjunction with the Borough Manager, according to the best information available. d. Dennis has, since February, 1984, found work other than with the Borough and is no longer available for part -time work with the Borough. 4. Minutes of Council meetings confirm the following: a. On January 11, 1983, a motion was made by Councilman Senic and seconded by Roland to hire your son, Dennis Rupinski, as a part -time sanitation laborer in the Street Department, effective December 20, 1982 at the rate of $4.75 per hour. You initially voted in favor of the motion but changed your vote to not voting on the advice of the solicitor. b. On February 15, 1983, a motion to hire your son as a part -time employee in the Street Department at the rate of 54.75 per hour was re- introduced by Councilman Senic and seconded by Councilman Braill. The motion passed by a 7 to 2 vote and you voted affirmatively. c. The solicitor, with respect to your vote of February 15, 1983, after reviewing his advice of January 11, 1983, in light of the fact that your son is not a minor or dependent upon you, reversed his ruling and opined there was no conflict in your voting in favor of your son's hiring. Charles Rupinski , Councilman August 30, 1984 Page 3 5. Records confirm that Borough Council routinely approves the payroll of Borough employees at monthly meetings. Your son's wages were included for approval during the months of January, February, June, July, September, October, and November, 1983. You voted in favor of approving the payrolls for these periods. 6. Borough records confirm your son, Dennis, earned and was paid the following wages while employed by the Borough: a. Pay period January 1 -15, 1983 - $351.50 b. Pay period February 1 -15, 1983 - 45.00 c. Pay period June 1 -15, 1983 - 155.00 d. Pay period June 16 -30, 1983 - 430.00 e. Pay period July 1 -15, 1983 - 298.75 f. Pay period July 16 -31, 1983 - 312.00 g. Pay period September 1 -15, 1983 - 125.88 h. Pay period September 16 -30, 1983 - 76.00 i. Pay period October 1 -15, 1983 - 232.75 j. Pay period November, 1983 - 152.00 Total - $2,178.88 B. Discussion: As an elected official and Councilman, you are a "public official" and as such your conduct must conform to the requirements of the Ethics Act. Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act requires that: (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). The Ethics Act defines "immediate family" as including: "Immediate family." A spouse residing in the person's household and minor dependent children. 65 P.S. 402. It is clear that under these circumstances there is no violation of Section 3(a) since your son, Dennis, is neither a minor nor a dependent. However, this Commission has also stated that an official must abstain from questions pertaining to the hiring of a son, even though not a minor or dependent in order to aovid the appearance of a conflict with the public trust. See O'Reilly /Johnston, 83 -012. Charles Rupinski, Councilman Page 4 Thus, you should have abstained from voting on February 15, 1983, as discussed above. However, given that you acted upon the advice of your solicitor in doing so, the lack of evidence that you used your office to secure this job for your son as of December, 1983, when he reported to work, and the fact that there is no financial gain to you apparent here, we will take no further action. Should such a situation arise again, however, it would be best to request advice from the State Ethics Commission regarding your duties and obligations under the Ethics Act and to abstain from voting in similar circumstances. C. Conclusion: There has been no violation of Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act under these facts and circumstances but your conduct did give rise to an appearance of a conflict of interest with the public trust. You must avoid such circumstances in the future, abstain from voting if a similar situation arises and should request advice from the State Ethics Commission as necessary. 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 thisUraer, 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). Iy the SSC /rdp C'.irman B. Conner August 30, 1984