Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout370 FurlongMs. Emma Furlong Box 565 California, PA 15419 Re: 84 -50 -C STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 1120 ORDER OF THE COMMISSION March 13, 1985 Order No. 370 Dear Ms. Furlong: 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: I. Allegation: That you violated Section 8 and 9 of the Ethics Act, 65 P.S. 408 and OT-Which requires that all Commisssion proceedings and records relating to an investigation shall be confidential until a final determination is made by the Commission when you stated that the Commission was investigating Mr. Jason Conaway. A. Findings: 1. On August 17, 1983, the State Ethics Commission received a complaint against Mr. Jason G. Conaway. a. On January, 1984, the State Ethics Commission notified the complainant that an investigation had been commenced and that the confidentiality requirements of Section 8(a) of the Ethics Act applied to the complainant. b. This is standard practice and required by the Ethics Act and Commission regulations. c. The complainant's name was not and has not been revealed to the respondent. Ms. Emma Furlong Page 2 Section 8. Investigations by the commission. (a) Upon a complaint signed under penalty of perjury by any person or upon its own motion, the comission shall investigate any alleged violation of this act. All commission proceedings and records relating to an investigation shall be confidential until a final determination is made by the commission. The executive director shall notify any person under investigation by the commission of the investigation and of the natue of the alleged violation within five days of the commencement of the investigation. within 15 days of the filing of a sworn complaint by a person alleging a violation, and every 30 days thereafter until the matter is terminated, the executive director shall notify the complainant of the action taken to date by the commission together with the reasons for such action or nonaction. 65 P.S. 408(a). d. On August 15, 1984, the State Ethics Commission issued Order No. 332 which found that Mr. Conaway had not violated Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act but had created the appearance of a conflict with the public trust and advised him to abstain from council decisions on all police matters. 2. There were numerous references to our investigation between August 15, 1983 and August 15, 1984. a. Minutes of a California Rorough Council public meeting on August 15, 1983 record a statement by you that you had filed a complaint with the State Ethics Commission and believed the Commission would investigate. b. On April 9, 1984, the Brownsville Telegraph reported that you had said the Ethics Commission was investigating Mr. Conaway. c. On April 27, 1984, the Brownsville Telegraph printed a retraction of that report and stated that you did not make the statement. They attributed the remarks to the Borough Solicitor. d. During that public meeting, the Solicitor counseled the Borough councilmembers against making any statements about the State Ethics Commission investigation until a decision had been rendered. B. Discussion: March 13, 1985 Ms. Emma Furlong Page 3 March 13, 1985 The Complainant in the case which resulted in Order No. 332 being issued to Mr. Conaway on August 15, 1984, was notified of the confidentiality requirements of the Ethics Act by letter dated January 20, 1984. While the comments attributed to you in the August 15, 1983 council meeting minutes indicated that the Commission might investigate Mr. Conaway, no investigation was underway at that time and, therefore, there was no notice of the confidentiality requirements to any parties who might have been involved. Under these circumstances, we find no basis for finding a violation of the Ethics Act. We also find no evidence that you violated the confidentiality requirements of the Ethics Act at any time during the investigation. C. Conclusion: You did not violate Section 8(a) of the Ethics Act during the investigation involving Mr. Jason G. Conaway and we will take no further action. 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 — order, 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 .mmission HBC /na Her t 8. Conner Chairman