Loading...
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