Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout556 FetterMr. Russell C. Fetter Route 6 Bedford, PA 15522 Re: 85 -105 -C Dear Mr. Fetter: tip,, °ate STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 ORDER OF THE COMMISSION Order No. 556 DECIDED 2 6 1987 MAILS 1 The 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 Bedford Township, violated Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 P.S. §403(a), which prohibits a public employee's or public official's use of office or confidential information gained through that office to obtain financial gain other than compensation allowed by law because you continued to have the township pay the total cost of your participation in Blue Cross and Blue Shield, and eye glass and prescription drug coverage despite an auditor's motion on January 8, 1985, that working supervisors were required to pay 25% of the cost of the program. A. Findings: 1. You served as a Bedford Township Supervisor from January 1984 to present. a. Previously, you served as township assistant roadmaster from January 1984 to January 1987. You, therefore, are subject to the requirements of the State Ethics Act. • 2. Township minutes of the supervisors' meeting of January 5, 1982 reflect that the annual meeting of the township auditors was on this agenda. Minutes indicated that 100% of the cost of Blue Cross /Blue Shield coverage was approved as a fringe benefit for calendar year 1982 by the township auditors. a. There was no indication that working township supervisors were required to pay 25% of the cost of Blue Cross /Blue Shield coverage. b. There is no township resolution or ordinance confirming approval of this coverage. Mr. Russell C. Fetter Page 2 3. Minutes of the township auditors' meeting of January 8, 1985, reflect that the auditors approved a motion to have the township pay 75% of the Blue Cross /Blue Shield premiums for the working township supervisors. This approval was for calendar year 19E5, 4. Review of Blue Cross /Blue Shield invoices for the period January 1985 to December 1985 at the township office disclosed that you were not covered by Blue Cross /Blue Shield under the township's program during this period. a. You stated that you did not avail yourself of the opportunity to obtain Blue Cross /Blue Shield coverage through the township. b. You advised that your wife is employed by United Telephone Company and has heal insurance coverage in her name. You stated that you are covered as a member of her family under this policy. c. You stated that you wanted to avoid involvement in the controversy regarding the payment of 25% of the cost of Blue Cross /Blue Shield coverage by the township supervisors. B. Discussion: As t. township supervisor, you are a public official as that term is defined in the State Ethics Act. 65 P.S. §402; Sowers, 80 -050. Your conduct as ouch an official must, therefore, conform to the requirements of the State Ethics Act. Generally, the State Ethics Act provides as follows: Section 3,. Restricted activities. (a) No public official or public employee shall use his public office or any confidential nformati,on 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). Within the above provision of law, this Cogmission has previously determined that a township supervisor may not receive at the township's expense pension, health, hospitalization, medical and life insurance benefits when such supervisor acts only in the capacity of a supervisor. Krane, 84 -001; Cowie, 84 -010. Additionally, even if such a supervisor is employed by the township as a roadmaster, in accordance with the Second Class Township Code, such benefits are considered compensation and must, therefore, be fixed as such by the township board of autitors. See Synoski v. Hazle Township, Pa. Commw. , 500 A.2d 1282, (1985); In re: Appeal of the Auditors Report of Muncy Creek Township, Pa. Comm. Ct. A.2d , (No. 2650 C.D. 1985, Filed 2- 11 -97); Hunt, No,. 348 -R. Any benefits received other than as Mr. Russell C. Fetter Page 3 provided for above, would constitute a financial gain obtained in violation of the State Ethics Act. See, McCutcheon v. State Ethics Commission, 77 Pa. Commw. 529, 466 A.2d 283, (1983); Conrad v. Exeter Township, 27 D & C 3d 253, (1983). These principles of law are now well settled and constitute the law under which this situation must be reviewed. See, In Re: Report of Audit or South Union Township, 47 Pa. Commw. 1, 407 A.2d 906, (1979). The facts of the instant situation clearly reveal that you received no benefits at the township's expense and you, therefore, did not violate the State Ethics Act. C. Conclusion: You did not violate the Ethics Act as you did not participate in the township's insurance programs and, therefore, did not receive any financial gain through your public position. 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 documentation with the Commission which justifies reconsideration 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 person who violates the confidentiality of a Commission proceeding is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned for not more than one year or both, see 65 P.S. 409(e). 1 By the Commission, ./. ii,i44.ui- kfcs,. r .Ar t . G. Sieber Pancoast Chairman •