Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout344 SnyderMr. John C. Snyder 437 Darlington Road Media, PA 19063 Re: No. 84 -58 -C STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 ORDER OF THE COMMISSION September 28, 1984 Order No. 344 Dear Mr. Snyder: The State Ethics Commission has received a complaint regarding you and a possible violation of Pct 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 School Director in Rose Tree Media School District, violated Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 P.S. 403 (a), which prohibits a public official's use of his office or confidential information gained from that office for personal gain for himself, a member of his immediate family or a business with which he is associated by participating in executive sessions, voting for the Chief Negotiator for a contract between your School District and the local bargaining unit in which your wife is a member. A. Findings: 1. You have served as a School Director in the Rose Tree Media School District since 1975, currently serve as the President, and as such are subject to the Ethics Act. 2. Your wife is and has been a teacher in the same District for the past 18 years. 3. On March 20, 1984, the School District hired Mr. Eugene J. Monaco as its Chief Negotiator for negotiations with the Rose Tree Media Education Association. John C. Snyder Page 2 September 28, 1984 a. Mr. Monaco was selected from a number of candidates which the School Board had considered and interviewed. b. You participated in the interviews. c. The School Board's decision to interview candidates for the position of chief negotiator was made at a meeting of the Board on February 21, 1984 which was open to the public. d. You voted to hire Mr. Monaco. 4. There is no evidence that you participated in negotiations or meetings to discuss negotiation positions. B. Discussion: Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act 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). While your wife's salary would be of financial interest to you, your participation in the selection process of a chief negotiator and your vote to select an individual did not result in financial gain to her. Obviously, his negotiations could lead to a contract which would give your wife as a member of the bargaining unit additional compensation and benefits. The Commission has previously concluded that where the question presented to a public official directly and individually affects his or her spouse, abstention is required. See Leete, 82 -005. However, in your case, your vote would not determine how your spouse would be affected by the negotiation. In addition, there is no evidence that the contract which would be negotiated would treat your wife in a way which would be substantially different than any other teacher within the bargaining unit. The Commission has already ruled on similar circumstances. See Krier, 84 -002. In that case, we ruled that Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act would not prohibit a School Director from participating in the final vote on a collective bargaining agreement even where the Director's spouse was a teacher in the District. However, we stated that to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest with the public trust, the School Director should refrain from John C. Snyder Page 3 HBC /jc September 28, 1984 participating in negotiations, discussions, or meetings regarding this collective bargaining agreement, but may vote on final adoption or ratification of the agreement where he or she did refrain from participation in meetings, negotiations and discussions and the final agreement affects his or her spouse no more than any other member of the bargaining unit. We believe your vote to select a chief negotiator does not violate those principles and we find neither a violation of Section 3(a' nor the appearance of a conflict with the public trust. C. Conclusion: Your participation in interviewing candidates for a Chief Negotiator position with the School District and your vote to select him did not violate Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act or create the appearance of a conflict of interest with the public trust because it did not constitute participation in negotiations and your wife was not individually benefitted. 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 -5r eci , 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). Herb rt Chairman