Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout550-R KomoroskiMr. Arthur Komoroski c/o Richard Ferris, Esquire Ferris, DiPalo and Russo 1106 5th Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Re: Order No. 550, File No. 85 -16 -C Dear Mr. Ferris: STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 306 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17129 RECONSIDERATION ORDER OF THE COMMISSION Order No. 550 -R DATE DECIDED: July 21 1987 DATE MAILED: July Z8, 1987 This refers to the request for Reconsideration presented on February 23, 1987, with respect to the above - captioned Order issued on February 9, 1987, pursuant to 51 Pa. Code 2.38. The discretion of the State Ethics Commission to grant reconsideration is properly invoked, pursuant to our regulations, 51 Pa. Code 2.38(b) when: (b) Any party may ask the Commission of 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. The original Order in this matter was issued on February 9, 1987. Within the 15 -day time period provided for in the regulations of the State Ethics Commission, you forwarded to the Commission a brief letter requesting reconsideration of Order 550. Pursuant to that request for reconsideration, you indicated that there was a misstatement of fact contained in the Commission's Order. You further indicated that you would provide additional supporting data to verify your position on this matter. Your request, in this respect, was forwarded on your behalf by counsel. -Mr. Arthur Komo roski Page 2 On February 25, 1987, the Commission acknowledged your request for reconsideration and also on that date, a letter was forwarded to your counsel requesting specific delineation of any facts that were being contested. It was requested, at that time, that your counsel file with the Commission, an answer type pleading effectively °adrettting or denying findings of fact as outlined in the order issued to youterThis was requested in order to narrow the factual issues that were being - presented for reconsideration and to expedite the handling of this matter.t The letter also indicated that upon receipt of such information, the Commission- would be arranging an opportunity for the presentation of all matters- iiefore the Commission during a formal hearing No response to that letter was received. On April 7, 1987, a second letter was forwarded to your counsel in relation to this matter. That letter referenced to the letter of February 25, 1987 and once again requested a response to that communication. =Ong- again, there was no response to that letter. Or May 18, 1987, a third letter was forwarded to the attention of your attorney regarding this matter. The :letter indicated that as of the date of May 18, 1987, the Commission had received no information or communication on -, your behalf from counsel. Once again, it was requested that in order to further proceed with this matter, relevant information as previously requested and offered, be presented to the Commission. It was also noted in that letter that failure to respond would resulb..in the matter being reviewed by the - Commission based upon the current status thereof. Once again, there has been no response to that request or that letter. As a result of the foregoing, the Commission must review the request foil. reconsideration based upon the information which has been provided. In this respect, you have presented nothing,.' whatsoever, in support of your position: as outlined in the brief letter that.you forwarded requesting reconsideratioh. In light of the foregoing and in light of the fact that after substantial efforts, no contact has been made on your behalf, the 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, Q. 61- a. G. Sieber Pancoast Chai rman C