The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About524 WheelerMr. Kenneth Wheeler R.D. #2 Moscow, PA 18444 Re: 85 -035 -C Dear Mr. Wheeler: STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 ORDER OF THE COMMISSION Order No. 524 DECIDEDAU . U '$f MAILED :l[.[t t�:�t� 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 Supervisor in Madison Township, Lackawanna County, violated Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act which prohibits a public employee's or public official's use of office or confidential information gained through that office to obtain compensation other than provided by law for himself, a member of his immediate family, a business with which he is associated or Section 3(d) involving other areas of conflict because your wife serves as chairman of the township auditors and audits your hooks as part of her official responsibilities. A. Findings: 1. You have served as supervisor and roadmaster in Madison Township since January, 1934. 2. During this period your wife has served AS-11 township auditor. For the 1984 audit, she served as the chairperson of the auditors. 3. On February 28, 1985, the State Ethics Commission issued Advice of Counsel, 135 -518, in a response to your wife, Mrs. Sharon Wheeler, and Ms. Hazel Willians. That advice concluded the following: a. That the auditors should not audit the hooks and accounts of the hoard of supervisors where the spouse of the auditor serves as a supervisor. Mr. Kenneth Wheeler Page 2 b. That the potential conflict could be resolved by the auditor removing herself from auditing where your actions as a supervisor are involved. 4. Minutes of the Auditors meetings record the following: a. January 4, 1984: Your wife abstained fom a vote appro.;ng a $5.50 hourly wage rate for the township supervisors. The motion was passed by a 2 -0 vote. b. January 8, 1985: she road inspection ''iourly rate was set at $5.50 by votes or Mr. Archie Anderson and Mrs. Hazel Williams. c. March 9, 1985: Your wife's motion to file the Auditors Report was approved. "he abstained from the auditors attestation of reports relating to su ?ervisors. The audit for 1984 also shows this abstention, 5. The auditors report for 1984 specifically includes the notation that your wife participated only in the audit of the township tax collector and secretary's books. She did not participate in the review of the records of the supervisors. B. Discussion: As a township supervisor in a township of the second class, you are clearly a public official as that term is defined in the State Ethics Act. You ai therefore, subject to the requirements of that law. 65 P.S. §402; Sowers, 80 -050, Welz, 86 -092. The E c ri cs Act provides as follows: Section 3. restricted activities. (a) No public offi: al cr public employee shall use his public office or any confidential information received through his holding public office to obtain financial gain other thah compensation provides by law for himself, a member of his immediate family, or a business with which he is associated. 65 P.S. 403(a). Within the above provision of law, no public official may use his public position in order to obtain a financial gain other than the compensation provided for by law for himself or a member of his immediate family. Similarly, a public official may not use confidential information obtained in their public position for similar purposes. The Act defines members of one's immediate family as follows: Mr. Kenneth Wheeler Page 3 Section 2. Definitions. "Immediate family." A spouse residing in the person's household and minor dependent children. 65 P.S. 402. Clearly, from the foregoing, your wife is a member of your immediate family and, therefore, you may not use your position in order to obtain any financial gain for her. The Ethics Act also provides that this Commission may address other areas of possible conflict. 65 P.S. §403(d). A review of all the factors as set forth in the instant situation, clearly indicate that you, as a township supervisor, took no'action that in any way related to your spouse. As a township supervisor you did not use your public office to benefit her in any way. Also there is no evidence that you used any confidential information obtained through your public position to benefit your spouse. As such, we believe that you did not violated Section 3(a) or Section 3(d) of the State Ethics Act. With relation to the issue of whether any violation of the Ethics Act was occasioned by virtue of the fact that you served as a township Supervisor while your wife simultaneously served as a township auditor, this Commission has addressed this specific issue for your wife on a previous occasion. Specifically, the Commission issued Advice of Counsel, No. 85 -518 on February 28, 1985. That Advice of Counsel specifically addressed the issue of what activities your wife could participate in where she served as an auditor in the same township in which you served as a township supervisor. That particular Advice of Counsel advised that while there was no outright conflict of interest in such simultaneous service, your wife was advised of certain restrictions that should be followed in an effort to avoid any future conflict of interest or violation of the State Ethics Act. Our review of the situation clearly indicates that the matter was discussed at auditor meetings. The auditors appeared to have been particularly sensitive to the potential Ethics Act considerations and indeed, in the 1984 audit, it was noted that your wife did not participate in the audit of the books of the township supervisors. She only participated in the audit of the books of the township tax collector and township secretary. This was in accordance with the previously issued Advice of Counsel. As a result of the toregoing, we do not believe any evidence has been produced in the instant situation, to indicate that a violation of the State Ethics Act was occasioned. C. Conclusion: You did not violate the State Ethics Act when you served as a township supervisor in the same township wherein your wife served as township auditor. This result is based upon the fact they you took no action and participated in no township business which, in any way, related to your spouse and which, in any way, afforded a benefit to her. There is no evidence that you used any confidential info nnation to benefit your spouse. Similarly, your wife does not appear to have acted in her official capacity in any matter which related to you. As such, we do not believe that the State Ethics Act has been violated. Mr. Kenneth Wheeler Page 4 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 dccumen,tatior, with the Commis ^ion which justifies reconsideration and /or challenges pertinent factual f +dings. Sec 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 viclate this confiaentiality by releasing, discussing or circulating this Order. Any person who violates the confidenti 4` t y of a Commission proceeding is guilty of a misdemeanor anc ! be fined clot na+ ^_ than $1,000 or imprisoned for not more than one ,:ar or both, see 65 P.S. 409(e). By thr: r.ommissitn, G. Sieber Pancoast Chai man