Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout587 MillerMrs. Dorothy Miller 725 Michigan Avenue Johnstown, PA 15905 Re: 86 -028 -C Dear Mrs. Miller: STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 ORDER OF THE COMMISSION Order No. 587 DATE DECIDED: July 21, 1987 DATE MAILED: July 28, 1987 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, an elected member of the Johnstown Area School Board, 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, when you voted to hire your husband for the position of Inventory Controller and Dispatcher, a supervisory position, with the Johnstown School District. A. Findings: 1. You have served as an elected member of the Johnstown Area School Board since at least 1978 and as such, you are subject to the provisions of the State Ethics Act. 2. Minutes of the reorganization meeting of the Johnstown School Board of December 2, 1985, disclosed the following: a. Approval to hire Inventory Controller and Dispatcher: Motion Helsel, seconded by Zahorchak to approve hiring of David Miller as the Inventory Controller in a supervisory capacity at an annual salary of $17,000.00 plus benefits. MPS. Dorothy M i l l e r Page 2 Roll call vote: AYES: Mr. Areur:o, Mr. E' lsel, Firs. Miller, Mr. Torok, Mr. Zahorchak NAYS: Mr. Gjunich, Mr. Salem, Mr. Soulcheck, Mrs. Stevanik Gjunch, Salem, Soulcheck and Stefanik voted no on this item because it was brought up for discussion to the committee. 3. Board members confirm that this position did not exist prior to the December 2, 1985 meeting, and that the position was not advertised or discussed prior to the reorganization meeting. No other applicants were considered for the position. 4. You providr_ the following information to the State Ethics Commission on June 11, 1987: a. David Miller is your husband. b. The position of Inventory Controller and Dispa`cher did it exist prior to December 2, 1985. c. You did not know your husband was going to be mentioned fur position. Another board member propcsed his hiring. d. You admitted voting for your husband's appointment but felt humiliated by the board member who nominated your husband. e. The conflict of interests was raised by other board members at the December 2, 1985 meeting. f. You later discussed your vote with the school solicitor who informed you that you should not have voted. g. As a result, your husband refused the position. (i) He never worked for the district. (ii) Neither you nor your husband received any financial gain as a result of his appointment. 5. The superintendent of schools confirmed that your husband did not accept the position because of the controversy and protests surrounding the appointment. Mrs. Dorothy Miller Page 3 B. Discussion: As an elected member of the Johnstown Area School Board, you are a "public official" as that term is defined in the State Ethics Act. Accordingly, your conduct must conform to the requirements of the Ethics Act and the restrictions therein are applicable to you. Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act provides 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). "Immediate family" is defined in Section 2 of the 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. Factually, your husband, as your spouse, resides in your household. You, as a board member, voted on December 2, 1985, in favor of hiring your husband to the position of Inventory Controller Dispatcher. The position was neither advertised nor discussed prior to the above meeting. There were no other applicants for the position and on the roll call vote, the deciding vote (5 -4 split) was cast by you to hire your husband. Based upon the above, it is the decision of the Commission that there has been a violation of 3(a) of the Ethics Act. Our conclusion is in accord with prior orders and opinions of the Commission. In Rockovich, 356 -R, this Commission specifically found a violation of Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act when the mayor of a borough voted against limiting his wife's salary as building inspector. See also, Rupinski, 338, wherein this Commission found that there was an appearance of a conflict of interest with the public trust in the case where a borough councilman voted in favor of hiring his son as a borough employee in the street department, even though the son was neither a minor nor a dependent as provided in the definition of "immediate family ". See also, O'Reilly /Johnston, 83 -012. You should have abstained from voting on December 2, 1985 in favor of your spouse for employment with the school district. However, in light of the Mrs. Dorothy Miller Page 4 fact that your husband has refused the position and has not worked for the district, neither you nor your husband have received any financial gain as a result of your action and, therefore, no further action will be taken by this Commission. Should such a situation arise again, you should not have any involvement in the matter, and your abstention should be so noted on public record. C. Conclusion: There has been a violation of Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act under the foregoing facts and circumstances. However, since your husband has refused the position and since neither you nor your husband have received any financial gain, the Commission will take no further action. You must avoid such circumstances in the future, abstain from voting if a similar situation arises and should request advice from the State Ethics Commission as necessary. 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 e made available as a public document 15 days after service (defined as mailing) unless you file documentation with the Commission which justifies veconsideration 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 imprisoner for not more than one year or both, see 65 P.S. 409(e). By the Commission, XJ 1�.4e&' avyuc ttoi+ G. Sieber Pancoast Chairman