Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout420-R StacheAugust G. Stache, Jr. c/o George Retos, Jr., Esquire 70 E. Wheeling Street Washington, PA 15301 Re: Order No. 420, File No. 84 -178 -C Dear Mr. Stache: STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 RECONSIDERATION ORDER OF THE COMMISSION May 2, 1986 Order 'No. 420 -R This refers to the request for Reconsideration presented on October 2, 1985, with respect to the above- captioned Order issued on September 17, 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 he 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 he or were not discovered previously by the exercise of due diligence. • The Commission, having reviewed your request, must DENY your request hecause none of these circumstances are present. Initially, it is noted that your reconsideration request was presented for review on October 2, 1985. On Novemher 19, 1985, correspondence was forwarded to Mr. Retos in an attempt to obtain additional information in relation to this matter. No response to that communication was received by the State Ethics Commisssion. Subsequent calls and conversations hetween Mr. August G. Stache, Jr. Page 2 May 2, 1986 Retos and representatives of the Commission's staff failed to result in the transmission of any of this requested information. As a result, we have reviewed your request for reconsideration hased upon the information presented in your letter of October 2, 1985. In that correspondence, you set forth in items 1 through 6 the fact that Mr. Stache was not involved in the award or approval of the contract between the county and OuVall's Pharmacy. You assert that he was not responsible for the drafting or recommendation of the provisions of the contract or the procedures to be utilized in the billing. Our original order in this matter specifically makes note of the fact that the decision therein was not based upon any activities by Mr. Stache in relation to the approval or award of the contract. Indeed our order indicates an acknowledgment that Mr. Stache was not involved in the award or approval of the contract to the pharmacy when it was intially executed. Thus, we do not helieve that the information contained in items 1 through 6 of your letter relates to the basis of our decision. In relation to items 7 through 9 of your letter, we note that those items specifically address the killing procedures and check systems that were instituted in reviewing the progress of the contract between the county and OuVall's Pharmacy. As part of this, you set forth the fact that Mr. Stache was not personnally involved in the review or approval of the invoices submitted by DuVail's Pharmacy through the county and thereafter paid by the county. Once again we note that our order in this respect did not contradict this assertion. The order was hased primarily upon the fact that Mr. Stache, as the controller of the county, had the ultimate authority and power, and was ultimately responsible for the payment of these bills. It was based upon his statutory authorities and powers that our order was based. Thus, we do not believe that the information containers in items 7 through 9 of your reconsideration request justify the amendment of our order. Specifically, we note the fact that at no time was Mr. Stache's private relationship to OuVall's Pharmacy ever publicly pronounced or recorded. In items 11 through 15 of your communication of October 2, 1985, you set forth various factors regarding the inventory control process and the billings related to the county's purchase of various pharmaceutical materials from Pfizer Laboratories. Specifically we note that our order, while containing certain findings of fact in relation to Pfizer Laboratories, did not address the issue of whether there was any impropriety in this situation. The Commission did not find that the dealings between OuVall's Pharmacy, the county, and /or Pfizer Laboratories in any way was a violation of the State Ethics Act. Therefore, we do not believe that the information provided in your letter of request in relation to this would in any way change the order, as the order was not hased upon any of these factors. August G. Stache, Jr. Page 3 May 2, 1986 In relation to the items set forth in your letter of request regarding the Statement of Financial Interests, you had asserted that Mr. Stache was informed that he dir: not have to file a Statement of Financial Interests. In this respect you have attached a letter to Mr. Stache from the State Ethics Commission's administrative officer returning his Statement of Financial Interests. A review of this letter specifically indicates that contrary to your assertion that Mr. Stache was informed he did not have to file a statement, Mr. Stache was merely informed that the Statement was not required to he filed with the State Ethics Commission hut was required to he filed with Washington County. At no time was Mr. Stache ever advised that he did not have to file a Statement of Financial Interests. In any event, the order that was issued to Mr. Stache did not find Mr. Stache in violation of the State Ethics Act due to a failure to file a Statement of Financial Interests. The order that was issued found that Mr. Stache did in fact file said statements but on the statements failed to list, in accordance with appropriate rules and regulations, his association with and income received from DuVall's Pharmacy. The listing of this company would have been specifically required in accordance with the Ethics Act regulations. Your letter of Octoher 2, 1985 does in fact admit Mr. Stache's omission of DuVall's Phamacy as a source of income in excess of $500 on his financial interests statement. Based upon this we do not believe there is any reason to modify our order. In light of the foregoing, the State Ethics Commission concludes that your request for reconsideration must he DENIED. That Order, a copy of which is attached hereto, and this decision denying reconsideration are final and shall he made available as puhlic documents on the third business day following the date of this Order. By the Commission, G. Sieber Pancoast Chairman