Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout460 SchmidtMs. S. Ann Schmidt c/o James Proud, Esquire 14 West Second Street P.O. Rox 229 Media, Pennsylvania 19063 Re: R5 -25 -C, Order No. 460 near Ms. Schmidt: EMS /rdp Enc. State Ethics Commission 308 Finance Building P. 0. Box 11470 Harrisburg, . Pa. 17108 -1470 May 2, 1986 This refers to the above captioned matter in which you had requested reconsideration. As a result, the Commission has granted and completed such reconsideration and has issued Order No. 460 -R, a copy of which is enclosed. Pursuant to State Ethics Commission regulations, 51 Pa. Code 2.38(a), that Order and this letter evidencing reconsideration are final and will he made available as public documents simultaneously with the release of our order in McClay, No. 85 -066. Sincerely, :dward M. Seladones Executive Director State Ethics Commission • 308 Finance Building • Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Ms. S. Ann Schmidt c/o James Proud, Esquire 14 West Second Street P.O. Box 229 Media, PA 19063 Re: 85 -125 -C Dear Ms. Schmidt: STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 ORDER OF THE COMMISSION May 2, 1986 Order No. 460 -R 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 you, a candidate for School Director in the Chichester School District's Region 1, violated Section 8(a) of the Ethics Act which states in part that ... all Commission proceedings and records relating to an investigation shall be confidential until a final determination is made by the Commission in that you were responsible for the release and circulation of a handout captioned "WHO IS REPRESENTING THE FOURTH WARD" that included a statement that the State Ethics Commission was investigating Mr. William McClay. A. Findings: 1. You were a candidate for School Director in the primary and the general elections of 1985 and are subject to the requirements of the State Ethics Act. .a. You were running against Mr. William McClay. 2. Sometime in May of 1985, you authorized and paid for a campaign flyer captioned "WHO IS REPRESENTING THE FOURTH WARD." a. This flyer included the statement, "THE STATE ETHICS COMMISSION IS INVESTIGATING WHETHER MR. McCLAY'S ACTIONS ARE IMPROPER." h. Ms. Kathy Neary told you that the State Ethics Commission was conducting an investigation of Mr. McClay. You had no first hand knowledge of this. Ms. Ann Schmidt Page 2 May 2, 1986 3. You were aware of the fact that the handout contained this information. 4. There is no evicence that you v'er°e :;ware of the confidentiality requirements of Section 8t e) and 9(e) of the State Ethics Act. B. Discussion: Curr, entiy the Ethics Act provides as follows: "A11 Conenri ss' ?r leeedi ngs E .nd records relating to an i rivest igltion shall be confidential until a final Oft:uri nation is ride by the Commission." 55 P.S. §408(al,. The Act: further provides as follows: "Any person who violates the confidentiality of a commission proceeding pursuant to Section 8, is guilty of e mi sdemea1ior and shall be fined not more than $1,000 or iTpriscned for not more than one year, or be both fined and imprisoned." 1; is clear that within the above provisions of law, investigations conducted by the State Ethics Commission and all records relating to such investigation are confidential by statute. A violation of this confidentiality is a violation of the State Ethics Act and may be processed accordingly., Ire the instant situation, the evidence clearly reflects that information was publicly released, that the State Ethics Commi sion was conducting an investigation of Mr. William McClay, an incumbent school director against whom you were running. The flyer in question was authorized and paid for by youe. You were aware of the time of the flyer's dissemination that it contained the aforementioned comments regarding the State Ethics Commission's investigation. Clearly your actions were calculated to impugn the character of your opponent in the election. 'V (*Ur public pronouncement of the Commission's investigation, an i nreot igat icri tha . by law was confidential, was obviously intended to unduly influence the election process. Based upon the foregoing, we believe that your actions were not in accord with the confidentiality provision_ of the State Ethics Act. We also find, however, that this violation was technical in nature and we will, therefore, take no further action in this matter,. Ms. Ann Schmidt May 2, 198 Page 3 C. Conclusion: There was a technical violation of the Ethics Act in that you authorized the formulation and distribution of certain campaign material specifically indicating the existence of a State Ethics Commission investigation. Such reference to the Commission's investigative activity was a violation of the confidentiality provisions of the State Ethics Act. In light of the foregoing factors, however, we will take no further action in this matter. 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 on the third day after service (defined as mailing). By the Commission, r ci��, -w ��v►vr..zv G. Sieber Pancoast Chairman