HomeMy WebLinkAbout346-R DiGerlandoMr. Joseph DiGerlando
1050 -A Keller Road
Wind Gap, PA 18091
P
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
.308 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120
RECONSIDERATION ORDER OF THE COMMISSION
April 18, 1985
Order No. 346 -R
Re: 84 -100 -C
Dear Mr. DiGerlando:
I. Issue: •
You requested a reconsideration of Order No. 346 issued to you by the
State Ethics Commission on October 15, 1984.
II. Factual Basis for Determination:
1. Order No. 346 was issued to you with a date of October 15, 1984.
2. That Order included a statement which says "however, this Order is
final and will be made available as a public document 15 days after service
unless you file documentation with the Commission which justifies
reconsideration and /or challenges pertinent factual findings."
3. This Order became public on October 31, 1984.
4. Your request for reconsideration was received at the State Ethics
Commission on November 8, 1984.
III. Applicable Law:
The law to be applied to this question is as follows:
Regulations of the Commission
§2.15.Reconsideration of opinions.
Any person may request within 15 days of service of
the opinion that the Commission reconsider its opinion.
The person requesting reconsideration should present a
detailed explanation setting forth the reasons why the
opinion requires reconsideration. 51 Pa. Code 2.15.
Mr. Joseph DiGerlando
Page 2
The Ethics Act
Section 7. Duties of the commission.
(9)(i) Issue to any person, upon such person's request, an
opinion with respect to such persons duties under this
act. The commission shall, within 14 days, either issue
the opinion or advise the person who made the request
whether an opinion will be issued. No person who acts in
good faith on an opinion issued to nim by the
shall be subject to criminal or civil penalties for so
acting, provided that the material facts are as stated in
the opinion request. The commission's opinions shall be
public records and may from time to time be published.
65 P.S. 407(9)(i).
IV. Discussion:
Your request to reconsider this Order was
rnoues received ewithin t heitn e
specified in our regulations and we deny your
However, the Commission has always believed that the public is best served
when they have as much withrthat °policy, possible of
decisions. In keeping policy,
information in your reconsideration request a part of the public record.
C. Conclusion: The denies your
because it was untimely.
will be made part of the public record.
h
Our files in this case will remain confidential in c eer it h final
will b
and will be made available as a public w 8(a) of the Ethics Act, 65
ublic document in accordance with 51 Pa. Code
a
2.38(a).
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
EMS /na
Att.
Her rt B. Conner
Chairman
April 18, 1985
EMS /na
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION SUBMITTED `.`r !' ?5EP!. _GERLAN'3O
IN A REQUEST FOR EEI ;f �S .il:a� I7:, ; � J ?'
DATED CC l`ObER IS, 1934
Mr. DiGerlando takes the following exceptons to C• er No. 346:
1. Finding of Fact No. 2, because he states t`d ?r ' °,a
employees or equipment involved in that �ctioE.
2. Finding of Fact No. 2(b), because no explanatio:: was oivon . ''or the
word benefit and he believes he did not derive '::ir►anciai heuerit
gain in this transaction.
3. Finding of Fact No. 3, because all references to u e of tuwship
employees or equipment is erroneous and should bt umittac'.
The minutes of the township meetings submitted can August 23, 1979 inc.
October 11, 1979 with Mr. DiGerlando's request showed the folloring:
1. On August 23, 1979, J. H. Beers was the apparent low bidder for
excavation work with the township.
2. Charges against Mr. DiGerlando were considered by the Township
Supervisors at the October 11, 1979 meeting and the discussions and
decisions were recorded as follows:
a. He was charged with appropriating 2 truckloads of shale to his
private lane, using the township roller to roll down th'
appropriating gutter dirt to a lane owned by his parents and
directing patching work at Jacobsburg State Park without
authorization of the Township Board.
3. The Board decided he should repay $12 for the shale on his drive, $12
for the shale on his parents drive and $12.72 for township time to
transport the gutter dirt.
Mr. DiGerlando gave the township a check in the amount cf $50 to settle
these claims.
4. The supervisors also decided to bill Jacobsburg State Park for the
work which had been done without authorization.