Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout533 HawkinsMr. Chester A. Hawkins Sheriff, Clearfield County 1gn4 - Rear of E. norey Street Ext. Clearfield, PA 16R30 Re: 8S-022 -C pear Mr. Hawkins: A. Findings: STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 ORnER OF THE COMMISSION Order No. 533 DECIDED Q$6 MAILED 6 The Ethics Commission has received a complaint regarding you and a possible violation of Act 17n of 1978. The Commission has now completed its investigation. The individual allegations, conclusions, and findings on which those conclusions are hased are as follows: I. Allegation: That you, Clearfield County Sheriff, violated Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act which restricts a puhlic official or puhlic employee from using puhlic office or confidential information received through holding that office to ohtain financial gain other than compensation provided for hy law for himself, a member of his immediate family, or a husiness with which he is associated and /or Section 3(h) of the Ethics Act which prohibits any person from offering or giving anything of to an official hased on an understanding that the vote, official action, or judgment of the puhlic official or puhlic employee would he influenced therehy, when you threatened to obstruct a deputy sheriff's employment in a private firm if he would not resign at your request and hy hiring F. pale Porter as a neputy Sheriff in return for things of value previously received from him. 1. You currently serve as the elected sheriff of Clearfield County, Clearfield Pennsylvania. 2. You served in this position since 1g7R and are now serving your third four -year term. 3. Howard Peters served as a Clearfield County neputy Sheriff, under your supervision from January, 198? until April of 19R4. 4. Howard Peters was laid off from his position in the Sheriff's nepartment on March 11, 1984. n11rinq the period of time for which he was laid off, Mr. Peters attempted to ohtain employment at Rerq Electronics in Clearwater, Pennsylvania. Mr. Chester A Hawkins Page 2 6. Although he was laid off, Mr. Peters was still eligible to return to employment at the office of the Clearfield County Sheriff. a. Mr. Peters asserted that you had requested his resignation from his position as a Deputy Sheriff in Clearfield County. b. Mr. Peters has indicated that you had informed him that if he did not resign from that position, you would contact appropriate officials of Berg Electronics to insure that he did not obtain employment with that company. 7. You deny contacting anyone at the Berg Electronics Company regarding the hiring of Mr. Peters. 8. You deny informing Mr. Peters you would contact individuals at Berg Electronics in order to prevent him from being hired at that company. 9. You do admit calling Karen Davidson, an employee of Berg Electronics, Incorporated, is: order to determine the shift on which Howard Peters was working. a. You have stated that you made this call in order to determine when you could contact Mr. Peters in the event that he was needed by your department. b. Karen Davidson has acknowledged that you contacted her sometime prior to April 10, 1984. 1, Ms. Davdson indicated that at the time of this contact, you objected to Berg's hiring Howard Peters. 2. Davidson stated that you informed her that you knew i nc' vi dual s in "high places" with Berg Electronics who could keep them f rom hiring Peters. 3. Ms. Davidsc,.► asked the name of the individual at Berg to whom you were ref €, ~ri ng and when i nformed of the name she advi sed you that that individual was not involved it the hiring process. 10. Mr. Peters was hired cn or about April 10, 1984 by Berg Electronics. 11. Ms. Davidson indicated that no other threats or statements were made regarding Mr. Peters' hiring. Mr. Chester A. Hawkins Page 3 B. Discussion: As an elected county sheriff in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 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 that law. 65 P.S. §401 et. seq. The State Ethics Act provides, in part, as follows: 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: Section 3. Restricted activities. (b) No person shall offer or give to a public official or public employee or candidate for public office or a member of his immediate family or a business with which he is associated, and no public official or public employee or candidate for public office shall solicit or accept, anything of value, including a gift, loan, political contribution, reward, or promise of future employment based on any understanding that the vote, official action, or judgment of the public official or public employee or candidate for public office would be influenced thereby. 65 P.S. 403(b). In the instant situation, while we do believe that you, in fact, contacted a representative of Berg Electronics regarding the hiring of Mr. PrO of the State Ethics Act. This is so, particularly in light of the fact that there was no indication or evidence that your contact to that company was made as a public official. Additionally, there is no indication that you would have received any financial gain from that situation. Therefore, even if such had been a use of your public office, we find no evidence that such use would have been conducted i n order to obtai n a financial gain for yourself, for a member of your immediate family, or for a business with which you are associated as set forth in Section 3(a) above. Additionally, there is no evidence to indicate that you threatened to use any of the powers of the office of sheriff against Berg Electronics in order to influence their Mr. Chester A. Hawkins Page 4 decision in the hiring of Mr. Peters. Thus, while we believe that you did, in fact, call Berg Electronics and object to their hiring of Mr. Peters, there is no evidence that you did so through the use of your public office. We hasten to point out, however, that our finding in this respect only relates to the provisions of the Ethics Act and this order in no way is to be interpreted as condoning the type of conduct that we believe occurred in the instant situation We further hasten to point out that our determination in this matter is based solely upon the State Ethics Act and that we have not reviewed your conduce: within the purview of other laws. In relation to Section 403(b) of the State Ethics Act, supra, that provision of !aw does not appear to encompass the type of activity that has takrl,p place it the instant situation. Specifically, you as a public official have not Been offered or received anything of value based upon the understandinc tat your official conduct would be influenced thereby. Once agair, while ye find that you did object to the hiring of Mr. Peters by Berg Electronics, we d^ not believe that your conduct, in this respect, reached the level of <: -iolaticn of the State Ethics Act. Also, we find no evidence that you Eecepted anything of value in return for the hiring of any other Deputy Sheri f ". C. Ccnclusion: Based upon the foregoing information and factors, we do not believe that your conduct violated the provisions of the State Ethics Act. However, ou review of this matter is based solely upon the interpretation and application of the State Ethics Act and we have not, in this situation, rcviewed your conduct under any other laws. Our Mrs s i n this case will remain confidential in accordance with Section 6(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 P.S. 408(a). However, this Order is final and will be 11:ade available as a public document 15 days after service (defined as mailing) uoless you file documentation with the Commission which justifies reconsideratilh 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 pers..h who vT olates the confidentiality of a Commission proceeding is guilty of a n:i sdemeanor and shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned fci not more than one year or both, see 65 P.S. 409(e). By the Commission, G. Sieber Pancoast Chairman