HomeMy WebLinkAbout369-R ShultzMs. Darlene Shultz .
c/o Kim C. Kesrler, Esquire
23 North Second Street
Clearfield, PA 16830
Re: Order No. 369
File No. 84 -63 -C
Dear Ms. Shultz:
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120
RECONSIDERATION ORDER OF THE COMMISSION
June 25, 1985
Order No. 369 -R
This refers to the request for Reconsideration you presented by Counsel
on March 26, 1985, with respect to the above - captioned Order issued on March
12, 1985 pursuant to 51 Pa. Code 2.38. The discretion of the State Ethics
Commission to grant reconsideration is properly invoked, pursuant to our
regulations, 51 Pa. Code 2.38(b) when:
(b) Any party may ask the Commission to reconsider an order within 15
days of service of the order. The person requesting reconsideration
should present a detailed explanation setting forth the reason why the
order should be reconsidered. Reconsideration may be granted at the
discretion of the Commission only where any of the following occur:
(1) a material error of law has been made;
(2) a material error of fact has been made;
(3) new facts or evidence are provided which would
lead to reversal or modification of the Order and
where these could not be or were not discovered
previously by the exercise of due diligence.
The Commission, having reviewed your request must DENY your request
because none of these circumstances are present.
Specifically, you argue that your actions and conduct, which is admitted,
do not constitute a violation of Section 3(a) of the State Ethics Act, and
that it was not the legislative intent to penalize this type of conduct. We
believe that our reading of the Ethics Act is correct and that the type of
actions herein involved are properly classified within the restrictions set
forth in Section 3(a). We see no material error of law in this respect.
Ms. Darlene Shultz June 25, 1985
Page 2
You also assert that the Commission's Order referring this matter for
prosecution is disproportionate to your conduct. In this respect, we note
that the matter is Laing referred to the appropriate law enforcement authority
for their review and consideration. The Commission, in this Order, did not
make an affirmative recommendation for such prosecution although the
Commission does have this specific power. See Section 407(11). Thus, we do
not believe that our Order, in this respect, imposes.a sanction. In any
event, this type of referral is clearly within the discretion of the
Commission and we believe that such was proper.
Finally, you assert that certain representations were made by a staff
member of the State Ethics Commission to the extent that the Commission would
take no action against you after the County imposed its penalty. You do not
assert that these alleged representations were made to you or your agent.
These representations were allegedly made to a member of the County Board of.
Commissioners. You now assert that you relied these alleged representations
to a third party and did not contest the county action. Even assuming that
these representations were made, we do not believe that this would in any way
alter the current situation. As noted, these representations were not made to
you. Your reliance thereon would have been by way of third parties and
therefore taken at your own risk.
Additionally, the record reflects that you received a letter from the
County Commissioners which in part stated:
You shall make appropriate restitution to Clearfield
County subject to confirmation and acceptance of the
Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission.
You were therefore, put on official notice that other actions by the
Commission were possible.
You have not otherwise contested the factual findings contained in our
orginal Order and you have nut, as part of your current request, provided any
mitigating or other factors which lead us to believe that reconsideration
should be granted.
Therefore, the State Ethics Commission concludes that your request for
reconsideration must be DENIED.
Ms. Darlene Shultz June 25 1985
Page 3
Accordingly, you have thirty (30) days from the date of this
Reconsideration denial to comply with the terms set forth in the original
Order. That Order and this decision denying reconsideration are final and
shall be made available as public documents on the third business day
following the date of this Order.
HBC /na
By the Commissio
Dr. Leon L. Haley
Vice - Chairman
Mr. Kim Kesner, Esquire
26 North Second Street
Clearfield, PA 16830
Dear Mr. Kesner:
I apologize for not acknowledging the receipt of Ms.
Shultz's check.
We did receive and transmit it to the State Treasurer.
A copy of the transmittal is attached.
Sincerely,
Edward M. Seladones
Executive Director
EMS /rdp
Attachment
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
P.O. BOX 11470
HARRISBURG, PA 17108 -1470
TELEPHONE (717) 783 -1610
August 7, 1985