Loading...
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