Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout365 CookMr. Carl W. Cook 1731 Pennsylvania Avenue Lancaster, PA 17602 Re: No. 83 -181 -C Dear Mr. Cook: STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, 7ENNSYLVANIA 17120 ORDER OF THE COMMISSION March 12, 1985 Order No. 365 The State Ethics :.ommissio: has ?la: egarding ,;:i: --r-id a possible violation of Act 170 of 1978. The Commission has now coTpleted its investigation. The individual allegations, conclusions, and firlirgs on which those conclusions are based are as follows: I. Allegation: That, you, an Inspector employed by the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry, violated Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 P.S. 403(a), which prohibits public officials and public employees from using their office or confidential information gained through that office to cb'cain financial gain and /or Section 3(b), 65 P.S. 403(b), which prohibits p'i5Hsc officals and public employees from soliciting or accepting anything or velue based on an understanding that the official or employee's official . or judgment will be influenced by accepting a number of air :c -r itiorers f5 a contractor whose work you inspect and by using state or state - leaped facilities during your regular working hours to attempt to sell these air conditioners and to store these items. A. Findings: 1. You are a Safety Inspector employed by the Department of Labor and Industry hereinfafter, the Department, and as such are a public employee subject to the Ethics Act. 2. You worked in Lancaster for the Department from your appointment on January 28, 1980 until April 3, 1984, when you were transferred to the Department's Philadelphia office. Carl Cook Page 2 3. As a Safety Inspector you performed inspections of individual and commercial and other public buildings. 4. Between October 3, 1980 and September 29, 1981, you conducted 16 inspections of the building known as the Hamilton Watch Building. a. This building was being converted to an apartment complex by a developer, Clock Tower Apartments. March 12, 1985 b. This building had been owned by Hamilton Technology, Inc., but had been sold to Clock Tower Apartments before you began inspections. c. Clock Tower Apartments and Hamilton Technology have no business relationship except for the transaction selling the Hamilton Watch Building. 5. During one of your inspections, you saw a number of air conditioners in the Hamilton Watch Building. a. These air conditioners were still owned by Hamilton Technology, Inc., who had solicited various companies in an effort to sell them. b. You submitted a bid to purchase these air conditioners and on March 25, 1983 were notified that your bid was accepted. You purchased approximately 65 air conditioners for about $500. 6. You stored these air conditioners in a building at 439 East King Street, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. a. The Bureau of Safety Inspection, Department of Labor and Industry, in which you were employed, leased part of the building located at 439 East King Street from Robin -Ellen Realty Corporation, 2525 N. Seventh Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. b. The area in the building at 439 East King Street in which you stored the air conditioners was not leased to anyone at the time you stored the air conditioners. c. Mr. Harold Meneghat, Vice - President of Robin -Ellen Realty, allowed you to store these air conditioners free for no more than 30 days. d. Although you had helped Mr. Meneghat find maintenance personnel and equipment when he needed it for the building and hId saved Robin -Ellen from damages by reporting a fire in the building, you did not solicit or accept anything of value for his agreement to allow you to store the air conditioners. Carl Cook Page 3 7. You sold one of the air conditioners to a Clerk Typist also employed by the Bureau of Safety Inspection of the Department of Labor and Industry. 8. You have never had responsibility for inspecting buildings owned by Hamilton Technology, Inc. or Robin -Ellen Realty. 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). March 12, 1985 Although you became aware of these air conditioners while performing your official duties, the units were not owned by the Clock Tower Apartments Corporation, who were the owners of the building you were inspecting and you had no responsibility to inspect buildings owned by Hamilton Technology, Inc., the owners of the air conditioners. The availability of these air conditioners was known to some persons in companies contacted by Hamilton Technology in their efforts to sell them and you did not have confidential information about them because of your public position. You had no official responsibility to inspect the Robin -Ellen Realty building in which you stored the air conditioners or any other building owned by that corporation. Also you did not become aware of the area in which you stored the air conditioners through the use of your office or confidential information gained through that office. Under these circumstances, we find no violation of Section 3(a). Because you also had no official responsibility for inspecting buildings owned by either Robin -Ellen Realty or Hamilton Technology, Inc., it would be unreasonable to conclude that during these transactions, you solicited or accepted anything of value with the understanding that your official actions would be influenced and therefore, we find no violation of Section 3(b). Carl Cook Page 4 March 12, 1985 In addition to Sections 3(a) and 3(b), the Commission also has an obligation to review the facts of each case in light of Section 1 of the Ethics Act. In your case, we find no appearance of a conflict between your financial interests and the public trust because you had no official responsibility or authority to inspect facilities of any of the parties involved and Hamilton Technology had already made a number of persons aware of the availability of the air conditioners. However, while we find no violation of the Ethics Act, you should be sensitive to likely public perceptions if you face similar circumstances in the future. C. Conclusion: We_find no violation of Section 3(a) or 3(b) of the Ethics Act. We will take no further action on this matter. 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- Srder, 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 th C. mi s �� on, EMS /na erb Chairman er