Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout382 Markosekt. Honorable Joseph Markosek 436 Blackberry Street Monroeville, PA 15146 Re: 84 -167 -C STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 ORDER OF THE COMMISSION June 25, 1985 Order No. 382 Dear Representative Markosek: 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 follow: I. Allegation: That as an elected member of the House of Representatives currently seeking re- election, you used your public office to obtain financial gain other than compensation provided by law by having a pamphlet titled "Look What Your State Representative Can Do to Serve You printed at public expense and then distributing this item in door -to -door campaigning and /or Candidates' Night, thereby violating Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 P.S. 403(a). Findings: 1. You serve as a member of the House of Representatives and were a candidate for re- election in 1984 and, as such, are subject to the provisions of the State Ethics Act. 2. On September 13, 1984, you handed out a pamphlet titled "Read What People Say About Markosek." On October 4, 1984, at a "Meet the Candidate" meeting, you also distributed this handout. a. This handout does contain the following statement: "Paid for by the Markosek for Legislature Committee." b. It contains statements from various constituents on your performance and a cosy of an article from a newspaper. Honorable Joseph tlarkosek June 25, 1985 Page 2 3. At the October 4, 1984 meeting for candidates, you also distributed a pamphlet titled "Look What Your State Representative Can Do For You." a. You admit this pamphlet was paid for with taxpayer funds. b. You state that this pamphlet was distributed to constituents many times and is used to keep the public informed of activities in the state which might affect them and your role in those activities. c. You were asked to bring this pamphlet to the meeting by a constituent. d. This pamphlet contained general statements about the services performed by a state representative and the telephone numbers of various state and local agencies. e. This pamphlet did not contain any reference to the election and did not solicit votes. 4. There are other pamphlets and information which you make available to constituents and you note that this information is also made available to constituents by other members of the General Assembly. 5. While there is evidence that you distributed this pamphlet door -to -door, there is no evidence that this was done for election campaign purposes or that you solicited votes while distributing this pamphlet. III. Discussion: Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act prohibits the use of public office tor personal financial gain. See 65 P.S. 403(a). A legislator may not use his office - or in this case public money (for printing) which is to be expended only for "legislative" purposes to secure or primarily advance his own personal goals. A legislator, however, when dealing with re- election matters cannot be restrained because of Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act from performiny his official or legislative business during the campaign. The question in this and most other cases, however, can be reduced to simply whether the activity (pamphlet distribution) in question, constitutes "official business" of the member or not. If not, then the activity amounts to using the public purse to finance purely personal efforts and violates the Ethics Act. The difficult portion of the question relates to drawing a rational line around the term "official buinesss." In this respect, the Commission has reviewed analogous situations and established criteri4 in order to assist in such an analysis. Honorable Joseph Markosek June 25 1985 Page 3 Generally. the content of the material must be reviewed. a. Did it include appeals for political support? b. Did it refer to what a member expects to do in the next session? c. Did it discuss the upcoming political campaign /contest? d. Did it refer to political opponents? e. Can it reasonably be said to relate to legislative responsibilities? f. Can material be viewed as one designed primarily to advance electoral prospects? See Schaiffo, supra. g. How extensive was the distribution? h. Under what circumstances was the material distributed? i. When was the distribution made? See McCl atchy, 82 -29 -C, Rappaport, 82 -16 -C. A review of the facts presented in this case lead us to the conclusion that there was not a clear violation of the Ethics Act. The only one of the above considerations that was implicated was the occasion on which the pamphlet was distributed. While it is arguable that because the pamphlet was distributed at a "Meet the Candidates" night affair, it was used to support the election effort. The evidence, however, indicates that the material was distributed at the request of a constituent who was going to be present at this function. We believe that the context in which this pamphlet was distributed may have caused certain public perceptions and that you should be aware of such perceptions. We do not, however, believe that it rises to the level of a violation of the Act. The pamphlet had been distributed to many constituents in the past as a regular part of your official duties. It contained no direct or indirect solicitations regarding the election. Under these circumstances, the weight of the evidence does not support a finding that you violated the Ethics Act. C. Conclusion: You did not violate Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act through the distribution of the aforementioned pamphlet. 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. Honorable Joseph Markosek Page 4 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). EMS /na By the Commission, Dr. Leon L. Haley Vice - Chairman June 25 1985