Loading...
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