HomeMy WebLinkAbout471-R PellegriniMr. Alfred Pellegrini
c/o John F. Cambest, Esquire
Suite 1100 Bank Tower
307 Fourth Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Re: Order No. 471
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120
RECONSIDERATION ORDER OF THE COMMISSION
Order No. 471 -R
DECIDE[M
AR 11 1987
PIAILEDJ 87
Dear Mr. Pellegrini:
This refers to the request for Reconsideration presented on May 16, 1986,
with respect to the above- captioned Order issued on May 2, 1986, pursuant to
51 Pa. Code 2.38. The discretion of the State Ethics Commission to grant
reconsideration is properly invoked, pursuant to Commission regulations, 51
Pa. Code 2.38(b) as follows:
(b) Any party may ask the Commission to reconsider an Order within 15
days of service of the Order. The person requesting reconsideration
should present a detailed explanation setting forth the reason why the
Order should be reconsidered. Reconsideration may be granted at the
discretion of the Commission only where any of the following occur:
(1) a material error of law has been made;
(2) a material error of fact has been made;
(3) new facts or evidence are provided which
would lead to reversal or modification
of the order and where these could not
be or were not discovered previously by
the exercise of due diligence.
The Commission, having reviewed your request, must DENY your request
because none of these circumstances are present.
Initially, it should be noted that while you have filed a request for
reconsideration of the Order of the State Ethics Commission issued on May 2,
1986, we specifically note that while the Order referred certain matters to
Mr. Alfred Pellegrini
Page 2
the appropriate law enforcement officers in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
that Order did not specifically determine that there was any violation of the
State Ethics Act. While the Order indicated that certain evidence was present
to indicate that the matter warranted further review, the evidence was not
conclusive concerning a specific violation of the State Ethics Act. In light
of the foregoing, it is difficult to perceive what, if any, relief could be
granted in the instant situation. In light of the above findings and in
conjunction with the factors set forth below, we believe that this request for
reconsideration must be denied.
The instant Order was issued on May 2, 1986. Within the 15 day time
period provided for in the regulations of the State Ethics Commission, you
forwarded to the Commission a one paragraph letter requesting reconsideration
of the instant matter. On May 16, 1986, a setter was forwarded to you by a
representative of the State Ethics Commission, specifically, requesting
certain information, including the nature of the basis for the reconsideration
request. While that request was submitted to you in May of 1986, you did not
respond to the reque:t until August 11, 1986. On November 20, 1986, a notice
of hearing was forwarded to you, through your counsel, advising that an
evidentiary hearing would be conducted on December 17, 1986. As part of this
hearing, your attorney requested that subpoenas be issued in order to prepare
for this hearing. On December 15, 1986, two days before the scheduled
hearing, your attorney contacted the State Ethics Commission and advised that
he no longer would be requesting an evidentiary hearing and that such would be
waived. As a result of that statement, a letter was forwarded to your
attorney on December 17, 1986, who had requested the opportunity to provide
certain additional information which was to constitute the record in the
instant matter. That letter to your attorney outlined the information that
would t_ provided to the Commission in relation to your request. On various
occasions subsequent to the posting of this letter, contact was made with your
counsel in order to obtain the information set forth in that letter. At one
point in time the Commission representatives were advised that the information
would be provided during the week of January 18, 1987. No information was
received. On January 28,, 1987, subsequent contact was made with the office of
your counsel and info: mation was received by the State Ethics Commirnssion that
the requested: documents would be provided sometime during the next week. No
information was received. On or about January 29, 1987, additional contact
was made with counsel. At this time, rep:esentatives of the State Ethics
Commission were advised the information would be forwarded no later than
February 6, 1987. inat information was never received. On February 6, 1987,
a letter was, forwarded to your attorney noting that the information had not
been received and indicating that the matter would be present \ ed to the members
of the State Ethics Commission for consideration on the issue'of the
reconsideration request. That letter also noted that unless, by the time the
Mr. Alfred Pellegrini
Page 3
matter was presented to the Ethics Commission, the information was received it
would be assumed that there was no longer an intention to supply such
information or otherwise proceed with the request for reconsideration. On
February 23, 1987, a letter was received from your attorney requesting a
further continuance of this matter. We see no need to grant that request.
As a result of the foregoing, this Commission must now review the request
for reconsideration based upon the information which has been provided. In
light of the fact that you have continuously refused to provide any
information, whatsoever, in support of your position, this Commission must
deny your request for reconsideration.
In light of the foregoing, the State Ethics Commission concludes that
your request for reconsideration must be DENIED.
Accordingly, the Order of May 2, 1986, will be released as a public
document 5 business days from the date of this reconsideration denial which
will also be released at that time.
By the Commission,
1 , :ett". Ogien-c-0-cur.t
G. Sieber Pancoast
Chairman