HomeMy WebLinkAbout571 StanleyDr. Emory R. Stanley
c/o James A. Kelly, Esquire
1428 South Webster Avenue
Scranton, PA 18505
Re: 85 -081 -C
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120
ORDER OF THE COMMISSION
Order No. 571
DECIDED: May, 26, 1987
MAILED: June 2, 1987
Dear Dr. Stanley:
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, Superintendent of Blue Ridge Schools, 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 financial gain other than compensation allowed by law or
Section 3(b) which prohibits a public official from soliciting or accepting
anything of value and from offering anything of value to a public official
with the understanding that that official's judgment or action will be
influenced thereby, when you stated the following in a Blue Ridge Schools
Newsletter, Second Edition of May, 1985. "I understand that plans are
underway to vote for write -in candidates on election day on May 21 and defeat
those incumbents running for office and then even getting rid of the
superintendent or some other administrator. The present board members are
doing a superb job. But even if the plan is successful, the new board members
will find that the problem did not go away nor will the new administrator find
that the problems disappeared. Similar decisions will still have to be made
only at a later date and by then the problems will have to be made and by then
the problems will have grown worse and the actid`ns taken will have to be even
more drastic. Please get out and vote, get your whole family to vote on May
21. By not doing so you let someone else make your decisions for you."
A. Findings:
1. You served as Superintendent of -the Blue Ridge School District from 1971 •
to June 1986.
Ur, Emory R. Stanley
Page 2
2. School Bo' rd minutes of the meeting of August 12, 1985, refl < ct 'Oa'. on
motion by Mr. Richards, seconded by Mr. Whitehead, t +,E Beavd agreed to buy out
the last two years of Respondent Stanley's five year contract. The board
agreed to pay Stanley 75% of the salary he would have received for both
1986 -87 and 1987 -88. It was noted that Stanley was also eligible to receive
professional employee's benefits under the Early Retirement Incentive Plan
dated November 12, 1984, and the benefits due all administrators under the
Administrative Employees Compensation Plan also dated November 12, 1984.
a. A Resolution was approved by roll call vote with eight members voting
affirmatively and none negatively. One Board member was absent.
b. Minutes reflect that a motion was then made by Mr. Richards, seconded
by Longacre, that Assistant Superintendent Richard Karr be
elected Superintendent effective July 1, 1986, and that he receive a
three year contract. This motion carried on a roll call vote with
eight members also voting affirmatively.
3. The minutes of the August 12, 1985 meeting further reflect the following:
a. The board announced that it would not be filling the vacated position
of assistant superintendent.
b. A motion was made by Mr. Whitehead, seconded by Mr. Longacre, to
immediately place advertisements for a Business Manager so this
person could be employed by January 2, 1986, and be trained by
Stanley prior to his retirement on June 30, 1986. This motion
carried.
c. The school district will be saving in excess of $44,000.00 because
it will not have to pay Stanley's retirement benefits and other
fringes for the last two years of his contra'ct,>
d. The differences between Stanley's salary and Mr. Karr's salary, and
Mr. Karr's salary and the new Business Manager's prospective salary
were also viewed as savings to the school district.
e. The agenda for the school board meeting of August 12, 1985 called
attention to the fact that Mr. Karr's contract as Assistant
superintendent would end in June 1986.
Dr. Emory R. Stanley
Page 3
f. The School Code dictates that Mr. Karr be advised, at least 150 days
before the contract ends, what the board intends to do with his
contract.
A statement in the agenda for the school board meeting of August 12,
1985, indicated that Karr's situation, and Stanley's tentative plans
to retire in June 1986 were weighed by the Board.
h. A statement in the agenda for the school board meeting of August 12,
1985, indicated the board had considered hiring a Business Manager
for a period of months, possibly years.
i. The early retirement plan for Stanley included a provision for the
last two years of Stanley's contract as follows:
75% x 54,000 salary in 1986 -87 - $40,500.00
75% x 57,000 salary in 1987 -88 - 42,750.00
Total - $83,250.00
This sum of $83,250.00 was then placed in an escrow money market
account on June 30, 1986. It was agreed that in January 1987 would
receive $40,500.00 plus interest and in January 1988 a payment of
$42,750.00 plus interest.
4. The Blue Ridge School Newsletter is utilized to forward school
information to parents of school children.
a. This newsletter is paid for by school district funds.
b. It is either mailed or taken home by school students.
c. A school calendar has been included in one newsletter, and student
events are usually publicized.
d. This newsletter is published regularly.
5. In the Blue Ridge School Newsletter, Second Edition, May 1985 you
stated:
g.
P
Ur. Emory E Stanley
Page 4
"1 understand that plans are undcrw - y to vote for wi_ i to -i n
candidates on election day on May 21 and defeat those
incumbents running for office and then even getting rid of
the Superintendent or some other administrator. These
present board members are doing a superb job. But even if
the plan is successful, the new board members will find
that the problem did not go away nor will the new
Administrator find that the problems disappeared. Similar
decisions will still have to be made only at a later date
and by then the problems will have grown worse and the
rctions taken will have to be even more drastic. Please
get out and vote, get your whole family to vote on May 21,
By not doing so you let someone else make your decisions
for you."
a. The newsletter also contained information regarding the school
district's surplus, financial status, information regarding the
elimination of certain projects and information regarding other
public sector concerns.
6.. Sdecific facts, as set forth in a letter your attorney forwarded to the
Late Ethics Commission are as follows:
a.. You denied that you misused the Superintendent's Office or
confidential information gained through your position when you had
the above passage released.
b. You denied that you solicited or accepted anything of value, or that
anything of value was offered to you to release the passage in the
newsletter.
c. You believed that you were defending attack a on your administration
of the school district as a professional administrator.
d. You also stated that you urged the public to vote and to consider all
candidates, whether they were write -in., new ballot candidates or
incumbents.
•
e. You denied that the passage in the newsletter favored one candidate
over the other. You related that each of these electoral areas
chooses two di rectors and a di rector -at- large. You described the
electoral areas as being divided by two separate districts, i.e.,
Dr. Emory R. Stanley
Page 5
g.
township and borough. Under such circumstances, you stated it was
virtually impossible for your passage in the newsletter to favor one
school board candidate over another.
7. Board Member Karen A. Worden provided the following information:
a. She recalled the school district newsletter of May 1985 and the
specific passage authored by Stanley.
b. Worden averred that the newsletter was paid for and distributed
through the use of school district funds or personnel.
c. Worden believed that Stanley was urging all eligible voters to
participate in the May 1985 primary election and, thereby, not let
others decide who would represent them on the school board.
d. Worden denied having knowledge of any circumstances where Stanley was
pressuring either her or other individuals for personal gain.
e. She stated that Stanley followed normal procedures when he applied
for an early retirement under a program which was already in place.
f. She attributed Stanley's surprise decision to retire to failing
health as a result of high blood pressure, which was compounded by
pressures of the superintendent's duties.
Worden acknowledged that Stanley was under considerable pressure from
teachers and citizens due to forthcoming budget cuts when he declared
his decision to retire.
8. Board Member William Richards provided the following information:
a. Richards averred that he was a successful candidate for the school
board during May 1985, and was re- elected in November 1985.
b. He recalled the school district newsletter of May 1985 and the
specific passage authored by Stanley.
•
c. Richards offered his opinion that Stanley was urging all eligible
voters to participate in the May 1985 primary election so that they
would decide who would represent them.
Dr. Emory R. Starlit/
Page 6
d. Richards denied that Stanley's message was meant to favor him or any
other incumbent school board member.
e. He denied having any knowledge that the paying -off of the last two
years of Stanley's contract was a pay -off to Stanley for his
statements made in the Blue Ridge School Newsletter of May 1985.
f. Richards stated he observed nothing unusual about the circumstances
surrounding Stanley's early retirement. He related that three other
school district employees were granted early retirement. Richards
continued that these individuals served under a one year contract.
Richards explained that as superintendent, Stanley was serving under
a five year contract.
g. Richards related that the circumstances of buying -back the last two
years of Stanley's contract pertained to Stanley's particular
situation. He denied that any favoritism was afforded Stanley when
compared to other early retirees.
9. Board Member Daniel E. Denny advised that he was a successful candidate
in the May, 1985 primary election. Denny advised as follows:
a. Denny stated he was initially against the concept of an early
retirement program but later changed his mind, and voted for
Stanley's early retirement.
b. He stated that a drastic decline in student enrollment convinced him
that the early retirement of some school district employees was a
partial solution to the problem.
c. Denny related that there was never any pressure brought to bear on
him by Stanely or any other individual concerning the 8 - 0 vote
approving Stanley's early retirement.
6. )cnny denied having knowledge that statements made by Stanley in the
n:wsl etter of May 1985 were a form of pay -off for board members
buying out the last two years of Stanley's contract.
•
10. F Board Member Roland V. Tompkins advised that he served from
December 1979 to December, 1985. He provided the following information:
a. Tompkins averred that he voted affirmatively fcr the early retirement
plan of Stanley during August 1985.
r
Dr. Emory R. Stanley
Page 7
b. He recalled that a problem with high blood pressure was instrumental
in Stanley's decision to seek early retirement.
c. Tompkins recalled that Stanley would receive a percentage of his
salary during the 1986 -87 and 1987 -88 years of his contract.
d. Tompkins advised that he never observed pressure in any form from
Stanley or anyone else with regard to the above vote.
B. Discussion: As an appointed superintendent of a local school district,
you are a public employee as that term is defined in the State Ethics Act. 65
P.S. Section 402. As such, your conduct must conform to the requirements of
that law. Nye, 435 -R.
The instant situation must be reviewed within the provision of certain
sections of the State Ethics Act which provide 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).
(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).
•
Initially, under Section 403(b) as set forth above, no public official
may receive or accept anything of value based upon the understanding that his
official decision will be influenced thereby. Similarly, no person or public
official may offer to another public official anything of value for a similar
Dr. Emory R. Stanley
Page 8
purpose. In the instant situation, there 's roc rv; :rzce "c,, indicate that you
were offered anything of value based upon the understanding that your official
actions or decisions would be influenced thereby. Similarly, there is no
indication that you offered anything of value to any public official to
influence that individual's official conduct or decisions. Even if this
Commission were to determine that your political support for the re- election
of the board of school directors was a thing of value, there is no evidence
that such was offered in order to influence the decision of those individuals.
Additionally, there is no indication that you accepted or received anything of
value based upon the understanding that your official actions would be
influenced thereby. As such, we find no violation of Section 403(b) of the
State Ethics Act.
In addition to the foregoing, this Commission must review the instant
situation, as noted above, within the provisions of Section 403(a) of the
State Ethics Act. This provision of law would prohibit a public official from
u °ing his position in order to obtain a financial gain for himself, a member
n� his immediate family, or a business with which he is associated. A public
employee would also be prohibited from utilizing confidential information
tained in his public position for similar purposes. This Commission, in the
has determined that a public official who uses the benefits of his
pl,!hiic office to advance his own re- election campaign would be in violation of
t.;':is particular provision of the State Ethics Act. See Cessar, 82 -002. Of
F:..urse, in the instant situation, you were not seeking public office and
:•efore, even if your statements in the newsletter could be construed to be
aid of an election campaign, such would not have been to benefit your own
:nation. In any event, it is not explicitly clear from the wording of the
issages in the newsletter that you were indeed supporting the election
(,- .ampaign of any particular individual. While that passage did, in fact, urge.
is citizens of the community to cast a vote as they saw fit during the
ection, such does not appear to have bren done in aid of any pat't icu' ar
ndi vi dual .
As such, we do not believe; that your cor:rluct speci f i ral ly violated the
�:-ovisions of the State Ethics Act,
We do, however, note that the Ethics Act also provides ar follows:
•
Dr. Emory R. Stanley
Page 9
Section 1. Purpose.
The Legislature hereby declares that public office is a
public trust and that any effort to realize personal
financial gain through public office other than
compensation provided by law is a violation of that trust.
In order to strengthen the faith and confidence of the
people of the State in their government, the Legislature
further declares that the people have a right to be
assured that the financial interests of holders of or
_candidates for public office present neither a conflict
nor the appearance of a conflict with the public trust.
Because public confidence in government can best be
sustained by assuring the people of the impartiality and
honesty of public officials, this act shall be liberally
construed to promote complete disclosure. 65 P.S. 401.
In the instant situation, your publication of the previously set forth
statement at a time when an election of the school board was at hand clearly
created the appearance that you were acting to further the interests of these
incumbents and thus your own interests. The use of public funds for this
purpose thus fostered the appearance of a conflict of interest. The Ethics
Act was without a doubt promulgated in order to prevent this type of
perception such must be avoided in the future.
Additionally, we believe that the school board should be aware of this
matter and we also strongly recommend that the board consider the
implementation of regulations that will in the future prevent the use of
school district facilities and publications for purposes that are ostensibly
political in nature.
C. Conclusion: You did not violate the State EthicsAct when you caused to
be published, printed and distributed in a newsletter of the school district,
a statement requesting that the'school district resident cast a vote in the
primary election. Your conduct did however create the appearance of a
conflict between your private interests and your public position. Such
conduct must be avoided in the future.
•
Additionally, the school district should consider the implementation of
regulations that would prohibit the use of the district's facilities and
materials in such a manner.
Dr. Emory 1 Stanley
Page 10
Our files in this case will e c:r id :.;:ia" y 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,
.fcCa tA.
G. Sieber Pancoast
Chai rman
•