Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout362 CerulloMartin J. Cerullo, Esq. Assistant Solicitor Schuylkill County 725 W. Norwegian Street Pottsville, PA 17901 Re: No. 83 -128 -C Dear Mr. Cerullo: STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 ORDER OF THE COMMISSION March 12, 1985 Order No. 362 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: 1. Allegation: That you, a full -time Assistant Solicitor for Schuylkill County and Vice - President of United Cerebral Palsy, Inc., did the County's legal work on a contract between the County and Habilitation, Inc., a subsidiary of United Cerebral Palsy, in violation of Section 3(a) or 3(b) of the Ethics Act, 65 P.S. 403(a) and 403(b) respectively. A. Findings: 1. Since November, 1981, you have served as a full -time Assistant Solicitor for Schuylkill County and, as such, are subject to the Ethics Act. 2. You also serve as Vice- President of United Cerebral Palsy in Pottsville, PA. a. Habilitation, Inc. is a subsidiary of United Cerebral Palsy. b. The same Board governs United Cerebral Palsy and Habilitation, Inc. You are a member of that Board. Martin J. Cerullo, Esq. March 12, 1985 Page 2 c. You are not compensated for your services with either United Cerebral Palsy or Habilitation, Inc. 3. In September, 1983, the County contracted with Habilitation, Inc. to do cleaning services in the County Court House. a. Mr. Robert Hoppe, Fiscal Manager of Schuylkill County, recommended to the County Commissioners that the cleaning services for the Court House be contracted out. b. Mr. Hoppe evaluated the work which Habilitation, Inc. had done for other organizations and recommended that the County contract with them. The Commissioners approved this recommendation. c. You did not participate in the recommendations or contract negotiations with Habilitation, Inc. Mr. Hoppe handled all negotiations and was solely responsible for the recommendation. d. At Mr. Hoppe's request, you did research the law to determine what bidding requirements the County had to meet when contracting for janitorial services. You advised Mr. Hoppe the Code did not require that the County ask for bids for these services. e. After the County Commissioners approved the contract for cleaning services and Mr. Hoppe had completed negotiations, he asked you to draw up a contract verifying the terms and conditions he had arranged. f. You did not participate in Habilitation Incorporated's decision to enter into this contract. 4. The Union which represents County workers has filed grievances over the contracting action. a. Mr. Hoppe is handling these grievances. b. You give Mr. Hoppe legal advice on matters relating to the grievances. Martin J. Cerullo, Esq. March 12, 1985 Page 3 B. Discussion: Sections 3(a) and 3(b) of the Ethics Act state: 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). (b) No person shall offer or give to a public official or public employee or candidate for public office or a member of his immediate family or a business with which he is associated, and no public official or public employee or candidate for public office shall solicit or accept, anything of value, including a gift, loan, political contribution, reward, or promise of future employment based on any understanding that the vote, official action, or judgment of the public official or public employee or candidate for public office would be influenced thereby. 65 P.S. 403(b). You did not recommend Habilitation, Inc. to the County or participate in negotiations on the contract between the County and Habilitation, Inc. Your involvement consisted only of drawing up a contract to reflect terms and conditions already agreed to by Mr. Hoppe for the County and Habilitation, Inc. This action did not constitute a use of your public office or confidential information gained through that office and,therefore,we find no violation of Section 3(a). We also find no evidence that there was a violation of Section 3(b) of the Act. The Commission must also consider Section 1 of the Act which states that a public official or public employee should have neither a conflict of interest nor the appearance of a conflict of interest with the public trust. While you were associated with both parties in this contract, we find that these associations and your actions pertaining to this contract did not create the appearance of a conflict of interest with the public trust.. However, in the future to avoid public misperceptions, you should make certain that the public is fully aware of any private interests you may have in issues that come before your governmental body or you in your official capacity. Having found that your actions were not a use of your office or confidential information gained through that office, there is no need to determine whether United Cerebral Palsy or Habilitation, Inc. are businesses with which you are associated as that term is used in the Ethics Act. Martin J. Cerullo, Esq. Page 4 March 12, 1985 C. Conclusion: You did not violate Sections 3(a) or 3(b) of the Ethics Act or create the appearance of a conflict of interest with the public trust when you drew up the contract between Schuylkill County and Habilitation, Inc. 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 Urder, 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 C. mi;. ion, d erb- B. ,Zdnner Chairman EMS /na