HomeMy WebLinkAbout392-R McCaigueMr. Richard T. McCaigue
P.O. Box 31
Coudersport, PA 16915
Re: Order No. 392, File No. 84 -052 -C
Dear Mr. McCaigue
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120
RECONSIDERATION ORDER OF THE COMMISSION
September 17, 1985
Order 392 -R
This refers to the request for Reconsideration presented by you on August
22, 1985, with respect to the above - captioned Order issued on August 5, 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.
As is set forth above, a request for reconsideration must be filed with
the Commission within 15 days of the service of the Order for which
reconsideration is requested. 51 Pa. Code §238. Service is defined as
depositing in the United States Mail. 51 Pa. Code §1.1. The instant Order
was dated and mailed on August 5, 1985. Any request for reconsideration would
have to be filed with the Commission by August 20, 1985. Your request was not
filed until August 22, 1985. You, therefore, did not timely file your request
and it will, therefore, be denied. See Getz v. Pennsylvania Game Commission,
475 A.2d 1369, (Pa. Comm. 1984).
Mr. Richard T. McCaigue
- Page 2
We note that you assert as the basis for your request that one of the
county commissioners has stated that he doesn't recall you voting on the
salary increases for your wife. You also stated that' this commissioner would
state that even if you did vote such was unintentional. You assert that
the other commissioners e;ould not dispute this statement.
The above is the only information that you have provided in support of
your request. The fact that one commissioner cannot recall your actions is
not sufficient to warrant reconsideration. Also, we do not believe that this
person can testify as to your intent.
Official records of the township, specifically the township minutes,
reflect your actions in relation to this matter. Additionally, your own
statements indicate that you voted for your wife's salary each year although
you considered your vote as a formality since such actions were always
unanimously approved. We specifically dealt with this issue in our original
order. Thus, even if you had timely filed your request 17or reconsideration,
we do not believe that you have supplied the type of information required by
law.
In light of the foregoing, the State Ethics Commission concludes that
your request for reconsideration must be DENIED.
Accordingly, that Order and this decis'on denying reconsideration are
final and shall be made available as public documents.
JJC /na
By the C °ssii
Her - rt 8. Conner
Chairman
September 17, 1985