HomeMy WebLinkAbout434 TodaroMr. Domenic Todaro
Councilman, Newell Borough
5th Street
Newell, PA 15466
Re: No. 84 -55 -C
Dear Mr. Todaro:
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120
ORDER OF THE COMMISSON
November 15, 1985
Order No. 434
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 Councilmember in Newell Borough you voted to
appoint your son (Frank Todaro) as road supervisor of the borough, without an
open and public process, thereby violating Section 3(a), (c) and 1 of the
Ethics Act, 65 P.S. 403(a), 403(c) and 401 respectively.
A. Findings:
1. You are a councilmember of Newell Borough and, as such, are a public
official subject to the requirements of the State Ethics Act.
2. Frank Todaro is your son.
3. He is neither a minor nor a dependent.
4. On February 15, 1983, the borough hired your son as working road
supervisor.
a. Ten applicants applied for this job.
b. The position was part of the borough's Comprehensive Employment and
Training Act program. (CETA).
c. Mike McHale (CETA participant) eliminated himself because he could
not drive a truck.
Mr. Domenic Todaro
- Page 2
d. Your son was hired by a secret ballot which resulted in the
following vote:
November 15, 1985
- Frank Todaro (3)
- Elmer Gola (2)
- James Aglio, Jr. (1)
e. This secret ballot was the only ballot passed and your son was hired
at $4 an hour for a 40 hour week.
4. The minutes of the Township's March 28, 1983 Meeting minutes show that the
Solicitor, Oliver Hormel, responded to questions about the legality of your
son's hiring by stating that it was legal, there was no conflict, the secret
ballot was had but not illegal, therefore, your son's hiring was legal.
5. You stated that the solicitor also told you that the hiring was legal
because your son did not live at home and was not financially dependent on
you.
6. Your son resigned from his position on May 1, 1984.
B. Discussion:
Section 3. Restricted activities.
(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).
In accordance with this provision, no public official may use his public
office or his vote as a public official to benefit a member of his "immediate
family." This term is defined in the Act as a spouse residing in the
official's household, or a minor dependent child. Your son is not a member of
your immediate family as that term is defined in the Ethics Act because he is
not a minor dependent residing in your household. Under these circumstances,
we find no violation of Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act.
C. Conclusion: You did not violate Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act when you
voted on the hiring of your son for the borough's road crew.
Mr. Domenic Todaro
_Page 3
November 15, 19R5
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).
JJC /sfb
By the Cormissig.?r
Herbe t B. Conner
Chairman
That Section provides that:
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120
DISSENTING OPINION OF COMMISSIONERS
LEON L. HALEY, G. SIERER PANCOAST AND PAUL J. SMITH
The following Dissenting Opinion is respectfully filed by Commissioner
Leon L. Haley in which Commissioners G. Sieber Pancoast and Paul J. Smith
concur.
While we also helieve and concur in the majority's finding that there was
no violation of Section 3(a) of the State Ethics Act, we do believe that your
conduct created the appearance of a conflict of interest and, thus, we file
this Dissenting Opinion.
The purpose of the State Ethics Act is clearly set forth in Section 1 of
the Act.
Section 1. Purpose.
The Legislature hereby declares that public office is a
puhlic trust and that any effort to realize personal
financial gain through public office other than
compensation provided by law is a violation of that trust.
In order to strengthen the faith and confidence of the
people of the State in their government, the Legislature
further declares that the people have a right to he
assured that the financial interests of holders of or
candidates for public office present neither a conflict
nor the appearance of a conflict with the public trust.
Because public confidence in government can hest be
sustained by assuring the people of the impartiality and
honesty of public officials, this act shall he liberally
construed to promote complete disclosure. 65 P.S. 401.
Clearly, the intent of the law as explicitly enunciated above, was to
insure that the conduct of public officials does not create a conflict or the
appearance of a conflict of interest.
The Commission has, thus, previously concluded that the provisions of
Section 1 of the Ethics Act require a broader interpretation and application
than the strict limitations of Section 3(a). For example; in Leete, 82 -005,
the Commission concluded that a county commissioner could not sit on a salary
hoard and vote for the salary of her hrother as director of the county
planning agency without creating an appearance of a conflict of interests with
her public trust. Such action was found to be contrary to the intent and
spirit of the law. The Commission affirmed this finding in a suhsequent
decision. In O'Reilly, 83 -012, the Commission rejected the argument that
Section 1 of the Ethics Act must he read narrowly to exclude the possibility
P1r. Domenic Todaro
Dissenting Opinion
• Page 2
that abstention is not required unless the action involves a member of the
immediate family. The Commission noted that if the Legislature had intended
that the general purpose of the Ethics Act was to be effected only as to
actions of public officials in relation to members of the official's
"immediate family," the Legislature had the ability to express within the
provisions of Section 1 the same limitations that they included in Section
3(a) of the Ethics Act in relation to the immediate family of the official.
In so ruling, the Commission determined that abstention was required.
The Commission also found that the public official should not participate
in a decision involving other applicants because by negative votes all
applicants but his son could have been eliminated and the result would be the
appointment of his son.
More recently, the Commission has found that the actions of a township
supervisor that operated to benefit his adult daughter, who was a township
employee, similarily created the appearance of a conflict of interest with the
public trust. See, Cumberledge, 216 -R.
We can find no distinction between the aforecited cases and the
circumstances present in the instant situation. You cast the deciding vote to
appoint your son as a road supervisor. This was accomplished by way of a
secret ballot.
Under these circumstances, while we do not believe that you violated
Section 3(a) of the Act, we do believe that you did create the appearance of a
conflict of interests with the public trust. We, therefore, dissent.
JJC /sfb
By
Y 6
Haley
Dr. Leon
Vice-Chairman
G. Sieber Pancoast
Paul J. Smith
Novemher 15, 1985