Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout559 CookMs. Margaret H. Cook R.D. #6, Box 397 Coatesville, PA 19320 Re: 86 -169 -C STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 ORDER OF THE COMMISSION Order No. 559 DECIDED Y 26 1987 MAILED 9 inn/ Dear Ms. Cook: 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, Director of Coatesville Area School District, 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, in that you were actively and directly involved in the negotiations of a collective bargaining agreement between the school district and the Coatesville Area Teachers Association, a group of which your husband, a teacher in the district, is a member. A. Findings: 1. You serve as a Coatesville Area School Board Director from December 1985 to the present. You, therefore, are subject to the requirements of the State Ethics Act. 2. Minutes of the meeting of the Coatesville Area School Board Directors of December 2, 1985, reflect that you voted affirmatively on a motion that the Win -Win Bargaining Procedure be used to negotiate a new collective bargaining agreement. Other minutes further reflect as follows: a. January 16, 1986 - A motion that Win -Win Bargaining be carried out on the weekends of April 4, 5 pnd 6, 1986 and April 25, 26 and 27, 1986. You voted affirmatively on this - motion. b. March 20, 1986 - A motion that the terms of agreement and payment of costs for the Win -Win contract be approved. You voted affirmatively. Ms. Margaret H, Cook Page 2 a. b c. May 22, 1986 - A motion that the Early Retirement Incentive Plan commence immediately and end on June 30, 1986. You seconded this motion. 3. The Win -Win Bargaining Procedure of April, 1986 involved two weekends of negotiations for the purpose of finalizing a contract for teachers in the Coatesville Area School District. Other aspects of this procedure are as follows: Sub - committees consisting of three teachers and three board members informally meet and discuss issues which come under their purview. . Four sub - committees were formed under the captions of Salary and Benefits, Working Conditions, Rights and Responsibilities, and Others. c. There is a precise listing of the tasks to be performed and time sequences to be followed. d. The goal was to reach agreement on a contract by the last Sunday of April, 1986. e. The sub-committee members were assigned to the following areas under negotiation. Coatesville Area Teachers Association Salary and Benefits James Kunkel Richard Carcella Fran Pierce Working Conditions Harry Martini Nancy Randier Elaine Clayton Rights and Responsibilities Yvonne Toney Alice Bryant Don Morabito Others Francis Taylor Helen Bonsall Arthur Umstead • School Board Maynard Lichty Robert Reymos Kejineth Prozelsky Leonard Fredericks Bruce Barton David Hemingway Gerald Patton Margaret Cook Francis Milone William Washington Janice Zalewski William Brunson Ms. Margaret H. Cook Page 3 f. On the final day of negotiations, the sub - committees came to the bargaining table. The issues were listed on a blackboard and then negotiated by sub - committee members until an agreement was reached. 4. June 26, 1986 - A motion that the between the Coatesville Area Teachers Association and the District effective July 1, 1986 through August 25, 1989 be ratified. You seconded this motion. 5. Review of the above minutes disclosed no instance where your vote directly and individually impacted upon your spouse, Walter Cook, a teacher in the District. 6. By letter of February 19, 1987, you forwarded to the State Ethics Commission a copy of the sub - committee assignments during the Win -Win Bargaining of 1986. a. This document reflects that you were assigned to the Rights and Responsibilities sub - committee only. b. In your letter you stated that a sub - committee on salary and benefits would have negotiated only the portion of the contract within their purview. 7. School Board Director, Robert R. Reymos, provided the following information: a. He was not present at the Win -Win Bargaining sessions of April 4 through 6, 1986 and, therefore, could not comment on your participation in negotiations during these meetings. b. Reymos was not certain as to what sub - committee you were assigned to during the negotiations. c. He stated that during the Win -Win Bargaining sessions of April 25 through 27, 1986, you did sit at the bargaining table and participate in the bargaining of the school contract. • d. He believed that you should have abstained from such activity because you had a conflict of interest in that your husband is a teacher in the same school di strict. e. Reymos asserted that one school board director voluntarily abstained from sitting at the bargaining table because his daughter was employed by the di strict. Ms. Margaret H. Cook Page 4 8. School Superintendent, Henry R. Hoerner, provided the following information: a. Hoerner advised that he was not certain as to what sub - committee you were assigned to during the Win -Win Bargaining of April, 1986. h< He stated that during the above bargaining sessions you sat at the bargaining table and participated in the bargaining of the school contract. c. • Hoerner believed that you should have abstained from such activity because you had a conflict of interest in that your husband is a teacher in the same district. d. Hoerner related that the only benefit your spouse received from the above bargaining was a salary increase. e. He stated that your husband had no grievances pending against the district at the time of the April, 1986 bargaining. 9. You advised that your participating in the Win -Win Bargaining of 1986 was limited to the Rights and Responsibilities section of the contract. a. You stated that prior to the commencement of the bargaining, you orally advised all members of the negotiating team and school board that you would not serve on the Salary and Benefits sub - committee. b. You advised that this occurred in a joint meeting of the above groups in the school superintendent's office. c. You related that no minutes were kept of this joint meeting and, thus, no confirmation of your statement was available. d. You stated that the school board president assigned you to the Rights and Responsibilities sub - committee. B. Discussion: As an elected member of an areA school board, you are clearly 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. See Krier, 84 -002. The Ethics Act provides and the instant matter must be reviewed within the purview of Section 403(a) of the State Ethics Act which provides as follows: Ms. Margaret H. Cook Page 5 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). This provision would prohibit a public official from using his or her public position or any confidential information obtained therein to benefit a member of the official's immediate family. A member of one's immediate family is defined in the State Ethics Act as follows: Section 2. Definitions. "Immediate family." A spouse residing in the person's household and minor dependent children. 65 P.S. §402. Clearly your spouse falls within this definition and, as such, you cannot use your position to benefit him. In addition to the foregoing, the Commission may also review the instant situation within Section 403(d) of the State Ethics Act which permits this Commission to address other areas of possible conflicts of interests. 65 P.S. Section 403(d). The Act further provides in reviewing matters within this particular provision of the State Ethics Act that: Section 7. Duties of the commission. (iii) Initiate an inquiry where an opinion has not been requested but where there is a reasonable belief that a conflict may exist. Such inquiry shall be conducted in privacy with full respect to the confidentiality of all the parties inolved in the alleged conflict. If the commission finds that there is a conflict, the information shall be provided for criminal proceedings unless the alleged offender removes himself from the conflict with receiving financial gain. 65 P.S. 40`/(iii). This Commission has reviewed an issue of a similar nature in Krier, 84 -002 and Blaney, 84 -003. In those cases, the Commission determined that under the Ethics Act, a procedure should be adopted similar to the requirements set forth in the Public Employee Relations Act. 43 P.S. §1101.1801. Generally, those provi$ions provide as follows: Ms. Margaret H. Cook Page 6 !0 No person who is a member of the same local, state, national or international organization as the employe organization with which the public employer is bargaining or who has an interest in the outcome of such bargairing which interest is in conflict with the interests of the public employer, shall participate on behalf of the public employer in the collective barge: i nj np process with the provision that such person may, where entitled vote on the ratification of the agreement„ (b) Any person who violates subsection (a) of this section shall be immediately removed by the public employer from his role, if any, in the collective bargaining negotiations or in any matter in connection with such negotiations. 43 P.S. 1101.1801. In this respect the Commissjon has attempted to strike a balance between the goals of the Ethics Act in insuring the impartiality of public officials and permitting those officials to perform the duties of their office. As a result, the Commjssjon determined that the financial interest of a school director who is involved in collective bargaining agreements in a district where his spouse is an employee should be sufficiently separated from the official's responsibility to the public. As a result, the Commissjon determined that a school director should not participate in the negotiation process, discussjons or meetings regarding a collective bargaining agreement with a particular union which, in part, represented his spouse. In this way, it was determined, the official's decisions as to the direction and outcome of the agreement would be eliminated. This would also insure that no confidential information would be acquired during this process and, therfore, the problem and use of such information would be minimized if not eliminated. The Commjssjon further determined, however, that where the school director properly refrained from negotiating the contract and participating in discussjons regarding the contract and where the final agreement presented for adoption or ratification affects the spouse in the same manner and degree as other members of the bargaining unit the director may vote for the adoption of that agreement. In the instant situation, it is clear that you were involved in negotiating at least part of the collective pargaining agreement. In this respect, therefore, your conduct as a school director would not have been in accord with our prior rulings in relation to this issue or with the provisions of the State Ethics Act as interpreted by this Commission. As such, we believe that your conduct would have been violative of the State Ethic Act. We do, however, note that your participation in this matter related to the portion of the collective bargaining agreement that concerned the rights and responsibilities of affected employees. You did not participate in the negotiation of salary and benefits or working conditions for affected employees. In this respect, you would have not been able to influence the Ms. Margaret H. Cook Page 7 financial position of your spouse. Additionally, it is noted that your spouse did not benefit in any unique or particular way as an individual. In this matter, your spouse was affected to the same extent as other school district employees. Based upon our prior rulings and the authority of this Commission to address other areas of conflicts of interests and require a public official to remove himself from the conflict of interest without receiving financial gain, we believe that no further action should be taken in this matter. We do, however, specifically find that your conduct was not in accord with the provisions of the State Ethics Act and with our prior rulings in this matter. Because, however, your spouse received no financial gain and in light of the fact that he was not affected by the final agreement to any greater extent than any other employees, we will take no further action in this matter. C. Conclusion: Your participation as a member of the Coatesville Area School Board in a collective bargaining agreement negotiation which related to your spouse, was a violation of the State Ethics Act and was not in accord with this Commission's prior opinions. In light of the fact, however, that you did not participate to any extent in the negotiations as they related to working conditions or salaries and benefits and based upon the fact that your spouse received no financial gain that affected him in any way different than the other members of the bargaining unit, we do not believe that any further actions should be taken in this matter. You are advised, however, that in future situations, you must abstain from participating in the negotiation of collective bargaining agreements when your spouse is a member of the bargaining unit. 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). By the Commission, Ar. I/C4 ' i3'x,.4.4.9-mat G. Sieber Pancoast Chairman