Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout443 DaviesMr. Wayne Davies, Sr. R. n. #1 Gouldshoro, PA 1842.4 Re: 84 -109 -C Dear Mr. navies: STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 1720 ORDER OF THE COMMISSION December 6, 1985 Order No. 443 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: 1. Allegation: That you, a Covington Township Supervisor, violated Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 P.S. 403(a), which prohihits the use of public office or confidential information gained through that office by nominating and voting to have your sister appointed Secretary /Treasurer of the township in which you serve. A. Findings: 1. You served as a' supervisor in Covington Township from January, 1980 until November or December of 1984 when you resigned and, as such, are suhject to the requirements of the State Ethics Act. 2. Mrs. Shirley Pierre, your sister, was appointed as Covington Township Secretary /Treasurer in Fehruary, 1980 through the following process: a. January, 1980, you made a motion to appoint Mrs. Pierre; Supervisor Richards made a motion to appoint Carol Nafus. h. January, 1980, Council decided to appoint a committee to assess the qualifications of both candidates. 1. The committee members were Peter Desandis, nelhert Jones, Mrs. Perna, Rarhara Havenstrite and Retty Genovese. 2. At the February, 1Q8O meeting, this committee reported that Mrs. Shirley Pierre was their choice. 3. There is no evidence that you attempted to influence this committee. Mr. Wayne Davies, Sr. Page 2 3. February, 1980 township meeting, Supervisor Hughes made a motion to appoint Mrs. Pierre, you seconded the motion and it passed. Supervisor Richards abstained. 4. Mrs. Pierre resigned from the secretary position approximately eighteen months later. B. Discussion: As a township supervisor you are a public official as that term is defined in the State Ethics Act. 65 P.S. $402. As such, your conduct must conform to the requirements of the Act. Sowers, 80 -050. The Act provides generally that: 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). The Act further provides that: Section 2. Definitions. December 6, 1985 "Immediate family." A spouse residing in the person's household and minor dependent children. 65 P.S. 402. It is clear that your sister is not a member of your immediate family as set forth above. There is no evidence that you personally obtained any financial gain as a result of this appointment and as such we must find that you did not violate Section 3(a) of the State Ethics Act. We feel obligated, however, to point out that this Commission has issued a number of opinions and advices in the past regarding a public official's actions in relation to other members of his family not within the above definition. The Ethics Act provides that the financial interests of a public official should present neither a conflict nor the appearance of a conflict with the puhlic trust. 65 P.S. $401. This provision is not limited by definitional restriction set forth in Section 3(a). As such, we have advised public officials to abstain from proceedings involving, brothers, Leete, 82 -005; adult son, O'Reilly, 83 -012, and adult daughter, Cumberledge, No. 2.16 -R. As a public official , you must he mindful of public perceptions and act in relation thereto. We believe that in similar situations, you should abstain from participating to any degree in a matter involving a member of your family. Mr. Wayne Davies, Sr. Page 3 December 6, 1.985 C. Conclusion: You did not violate Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act when you voted to appoint your sister as township secretary /treasurer because she is not a member of your immediate family as that term is used in the Ethics Act. II. Allegation: That you, a Covington Township Supervisor, violated Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 P.S. 403(a), which prohibits the use of public office or confidential information gained through that office by participating in the appointment of your son to a position with the township. A. Findings: 5. Finding #1 is incorporated here by reference. 6. Your son, Wayne Davies, was employed by the township as follows: a. From June 13 through June 28, 1982 as a temporary police person assigned to help during the township firemen's picnic. b. He was paid $4.00 an hour and received $52 pay on June 30, 1982. c. There is no record that he was employed at any other time by the township. 7. Your son was not a minor nor was he a resident of your home during this employment. 8. Discussion: Your son is not a minor dependent child, therefore, he would not be within the .definition of a member of your immediate family for the purpose of the Ethics Act and thus, you did not violate Section 3(a) of the Act. We do incorporate our prior discussion as part of our finding in relation to the allegation. C. Conclusion: You did not violate the State Ethics Act under the circumstances herein present. III. Allegation: That you, a Covington Township Supervisor, violated Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 P.S. 403(a), which prohibits the use of public office or confidential information gained through that office by making a motion and voting for a township donation of $1,500 to the North Pocono High School Library which organization employs your wife. A. Findings: 8. Finding #1 is incorporated here by reference. 9. At the township meeting in December of 1983 you made a motion to give a grant of $1,500 to the North Pocono High School Library Cluh and grants of $2,000 each to the Covington Fire Company and Covington Civil Defense. a. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Hughes and carried. Mr. Wayne Davies, Sr. Page 4 December 6, 19R5 b. You state that you believe the grant funds would not have been utilized if they were not processed according to your motion. 10. Your wi fe, Alberta Davies, resided with you and also worked for the Morth Pocono High School Library at the time of your vote. 11. There is no evidence that your wife's employment was dependent on this grant. 12. There is no evidence that your wife benefitted directly or indirectly from this grant. B. Discussion: There is no doubt that your wife is a member of your immediate family. There is no evidence, however, that your efforts to secure the funds for the high school benefits her financially in any way. She was not in charge of the school library. She was employed only as a library aid. The donation of funds were used to purchase a computer for the school library. The school involved is a public school and not a private entity. tinder these circumstances, we do not believe that you violated the State Ethics Act. C. Conclusion: You did not violate the State Ethics Act when you initiated a township donation of $1,500 to a public school for the purchase of a computer, even though your wife was an employee of that school. 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). 33C /sfh By the Commission erh•.'. . Conner Chairman