Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout427 ChylinskiMr. Edward Chylinski Township Supervisor Greenfield Township Wildman Road North East, PA 16428 Re: 84 -140 -C STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 ORDER OF THE COMMISSION - November 4, 1985 Order No. 427 Dear Mr. Chylinski: 1 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 as a supervisor in Greenfield Township you violated the Ethics Act by voting to have the township purchase and haul gravel from your son -in -law and daughter and that this violates Section 3(a) and 1 of the Ethics Act, 65 P.S. §403(a) and §401. A. Findings: 1. You are a Township Supervisor in Greenfield Township, Erie County and, as an elected official, are subject to the provisions of the Ethics Act. 2. In 1984, Greenfield Township advertised for bids for a minimum of 8,000 tons of bank gravel /aggregates for a period of one year. The bids were to be submitted on or before March 5, 1984 and opened at approximately 8:00 p.m. of that date. 3. According to township files, requests for bids were sent to seven prospective bidders, one of whom was John F. Pfadt. John F. Pfadt is the husband of Patricia J. Pfadt, nee Patricia J. Chylinski, your daughter. She is not a minor dependent or a member of your household. 4. There was only one bidder, your son -in -law, John F. Pfadt, whose bid was $1.00 per cubic yard. (See finding #2) Mr. Edward Chylinski ,.._Page 2 5. Supervisor J. Luke made a motion to accept the Pfadt bid, you seconded the motion and voted to accept the Pfadt bid, the motion passing unanimously. 6. These bids were advertised in the Erie Daily Times and the Erie Morning News on the 14th and 21st of February and the 1st of March, 1984. 7. On July 3, you participated in a motion to award another contract to this same son -in -law. At that time, Pfadt had hid on a contract for a 12 -yard tandem dump truck. a. Results for bids were sent to 12 truckers, 3 returned bid quotations. b. John F. Pfadt was low bidder. c. You voted to award this contract to your son -in -law. 8. The bids were properly advertised in the newspapers and through the mail. B. Discussion: As a township supervisor, you are a public official as that term is defined in the State Ethics Act and, therefore, subject to the requirements thereof. 65 P.S. §401 et. seq., Sowers, 80 -050. Generally, the Ethics Act provides that: Section 3. Restricted activities. November 4, 1985 (a) No public official or public employee shall use his public office or any confidential information received through his holding public office to obtain financial gain other than compensation provided by law for himself, a member of his immediate family, or a business with which he is associated. 65 P.S. 403(a). Additionally, the definition of one's immediate family is set forth in the Act as: Section 2. Definitions. "Immediate family." A spouse residing in the person's household and minor dependent children. 65 P.S. 402. Neither your son -in -law or your daughter are within this definition. Additionally, there is no evidence that you obtained any financial gain through your public office other than compensation provided by law. Mr. Edward Chylinski "'Page 3 The Ethics Commission is also empowered to address other areas of , -possible conflict pursuant to Section 3(d). 65 P.S. §403(d). Fritzinger, 80 -008; Yaw, 85 -011. The parameters of the type of activity encompassed by this provision are generally reviewed in light of the preamble to the Ethics Act which enunciates the legislative intent of the Act. A public official or employee, pursuant to this provision, is to ensure that their personal financial interests present neither a conflict nor the appearance of a conflict with the public trust. 65 P.S. §401. Such a conflict may exist where an individual represents one or more adverse interests, Alfano, 80 -007, where an individual serves in positions that are incompatible or conflicting; Nelson, 85 -009, or where such an official or employee accepts compensation to which he is not entitled. Domalakes, 85 -010. In situations such as the one presented herein, the Commission has determined that the definitional limitations applicable to Section 3(a) of the Act are not relevant to questions addressed under the above provision. Leete, 82 -005. As such, the Commission has placed restrictions upon various actions of public officials and employees when acting upon matters that involve relatives outside of the previously cited definition. O'Reilly, 83 -012. Here, however, we believe that because the award of the contract was accomplished through an open and public process and was awarded to the lowest bidder, that there was no appearance of a conflict. C. Conclusion: You did not violate the Ethics Act when you voted as a township supervisor to award a township contract to your son -in -law, who was the lowest bidder on such contract. 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 he fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned for not more than one year or both, see 65 P.S. 409(e). JJC /sfb By the Com ission ert B. Conner C airman November 4, 1985