HomeMy WebLinkAbout638 NacrelliMr. Henry T. Nacrelli
420 Eldon Drive
Broomall, PA 19008
Re: 86 -054 -C
•
Elp
c114 41K
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120
ORDER OF THE COMMISSION
Order No. 638
Date Decided: March 10, 1988
Date Mailed: March 16, 1988
Dear Mr. Nacrelli:
The State 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 former Superintendent of Rose Tree Media School
District, violated Section 3(e) of the Ethics Act which prohibits a former
public employee or public official from representing a person, with or without
compensation, on any matter before the governmental body with which he has
been associated for one year after he leaves that body in that you were hired
as Chief Negotiator for the Rose Tree Media School District within one year of
being replaced as School Superintendent.
A. Findings:
1. You served as the Superintendent of the Rose Tree Media School District
from 1982 through July 1985.
a. You had served as an assistant superintendent for that School
District from 1975 until 1985.
2. You were subsequently hired as the Chief Negotiator for the School
District in January 1986 for the purpose of negotiating contracts with
district employees.
3. Records of the Rose Tree Media School District reflect the following in
relation to your employment with the School District as Chief Negotiator:
a. Minutes of the Board of School Directors for January 30, 1986,
indicate that the board entered into an executive session upon the
conclusion of which the board moved Resolution 85 -86: 96, which
Mr. Henry T. N ?lli
Page 2
r ovided, in part, that the Directors ratified the employment of Mr.
Henry T. Nacrelli as Chief Negotiator for the School District. Mr.
Nacrel'i was to be paid at his quoted hourly fee of $70.00 per hour
and he was to report to the board through the chairman of the
personnel committee and /or the board president. The resolution was
adopted by a roll call vote of five (5) to four (4).
b. The Solicitor's Report of January 24, 1986, indicates that the Board
of School Directors received the resolution which would ratify the
hiring of Mr. Henry T. Nacrelli as Chief Negotiator. The solicitor
indicates that his law firm prepared this resolution and believes it
is appropriate due to present circumstances and the impending
schedule of negotiations.
c. ` esolution 85 -86 provides the following as background information in
relation to your hiring as Chief Negotiator.
"The School District Solicitor has advised the Board that
this Resolution is appropriate to ratify action taken at a
private meeting of the Board of School Directors held on
January 11, 1986. The fee being paid Mr. Nacrelli is the
same fee that was established for the Chief Negotiator for
the last labor contract where an outside Chief Negotiator
was hired.
Mr. Nacrelli was Assistant Superintendent in charge
Administrative Services from 1975 to 1982, In that
capacity, he served as Chief Negotiator for the Rose Tree
Media School District. During this period, Mr. Nacrel l
successfully negotiated two contracts with the RTMEA, one
of four (4) years and one of three (3) years. He also
negotiated successfully contracts with the bus drivers'
association and the custodial- maintenance association.
During his tenure as Assistant Superintendent, Mr.
Nacrelli successfully negotiated over 17 contracts and
handbooks with the secretarial association, the
confidential secretaries, the general school aides, the
special education aides, the library technicians, and the
cafeteria workers. During Mr. Nacrelli I s superintendency.
1982 -1985, he continued to work closely with the outside
negotiator hired by the school beard to negotiate the
teachers' contract. He headed an administrative team
which helped re -write the proposal which was ultimate
passed by the both the teachers' associa *ion and the
school board."
School board members confirmed thrt the board did not advertise for the
position of Chief Negotiator:
a. You were the only person interviewed.
Mr. Henry T. Nacrelli
Page 3
b. You had negotiated prior contracts for the district when you served
as assistant superintendent.
c. Your hiring was discussed among all of the board members.
d. The solicitor was contacted and advised that the district could hire
you.
5. You provided the following information in relation to this situation:
a. You served as an assistant superintendent and superintendent for the
Rose Tree Media School District.
b. You also were employed by the Chester County Intermediate Unit during
1985 through 1987.
c. You were personally contacted by a school director and asked if you
were interested in such a position.
d. You worked many weekends and evenings in this position.
e. You denied that there was any conflict of interest in accepting the
position.
f. Your hiring was approved by the solicitor.
g. You were re -hired as superintendent of Rose Tree Media School
District on July 1, 1987.
6. Records of _the Rose Tree Media School District indicate that one Statement
of Financial Interests was on file for you.
a. That statement was dated March 4, 1985 concerning your financial
interests for calendar year 1984.
b. That statement was filed in your capacity as superintendent.
c. No statements were on file for you regarding the other years during
which you served as superintendent or assistant superintendent.
7. Records of the Chester County Intermediate Unit indicate that two
Statements of Financial Interests were on file for you.
a. One statement was dated April 3, 1986 and was for your financial
interests for calendar year 1985.
b. One Statement of Financial Interests was dated March 20, 1987 and was
for your 1986 calendar year interests.
Mr. Henry T. Nacrel it
Page 4
B. Discussion: As a Superintendent for the Rose Tree Media School District,
hereinafter District, from 1982 through 1985, you were a "public official" as
that term is defined under the Ethics Act. Following the termination of your
service with the District, you became a "former public official" as that term
is defined in the Ethics Act. As such, your conduct is subject to the
provisions of Section 3(e) of the Ethics Act.
Section 3(e) of the Ethics Act provides:
Section 3. Restricted activities.
(e) No former official or public employee shall represent
a person, with or without compensation, on any matter
before the governmental body with which he has been
associated for one year after he leaves that body.
65 P.S. 403(e).
As a former public official, you could not under Section 3(e) of the
Ethics Act represent any person before your former governmental body which
would be the District.
Regarding the one-year representation restriction, this Commission has
promulgated regulations to define "representation" as follows:
Section 1.1. Definitions.
Representation - -- Any act on behalf of any person
including but not limited to the following activities:
personal appearances, negotiating contracts, lobbying, anti
submitting bid or contract proposals which are signed by
or contain the name of the former public official or
public employe. 51 Pa Code 1.1.
This Commission has determined that the main intendment of the acove
section relates to imposing restrictions upon individuals who leave
governmental service and then join a private enterprise which would appear
before that governmental body. See Pinto, Opinion 84 -021. Conversely, this
Commission has determined that it is permissible under Section 3(e) of the
Ethics Act for an individual to transfer from one position in a branch of the
Commonwealth to another position in the same branch. Cohen, Opinion 79 -045.
This Commission has also determined that a transfer of a public employee from
one branch of Commonwealth service to another branch would not transgress the
provisions of Section 3(e). See Pinto, supra. See also Hunt, Opinion,
84 -017.,
Mr. Henry T. Nacrelli
Page 5
In the instant situation, you were an assistant superintendent and then
superintendent from 1975 through 1985 for the District. Upon your termination
of service in 1985, you became a former public official subject to the
restrictions of Section 3(e) of the Ethics Act. Thereafter, in January, 1986,
you were hired by the District as Chief Negotiator for the purposes of
negotiating contracts with District employees at an hourly fee of $70.00 per
hour. Factually, the minutes of the School Board reflect that on January 30,
1986, Resolution No. 85 -86 was adopted whereby your employment as the Chief
Negotiator for the District was ratified. The resolution reflects the action
which was taken at a private meeting of the School Directors held on January
11, 1986 regarding both your employment as the Chief Negotiator and your
hourly rate of pay which was the same that was paid to the
prior
Negotiator. The School Board members stated that you were the only �pf
interviewed for this position and that your hiring was discussed among r all
Board members. You state that you were personally contacted by a member of
the School Board and asked if you were interested in the position. You served
in that position and then were subsequently rehired as District superintendent
on July 1, 1987. The record in this case reflects that it was the School
Board who sought you out for the position of Chief Negotiator for the
District. There is no evidence to establish that you appeared before your
governmental body or lobbied on your own behalf for the position of Chief
Negotiator. Thus, the following situation existed in this case: you were a
public official as a District superintendent; you left that position; you were
then offered the position of Chief Negotiator in which you served; you then
were rehired as District superintendent. Under the circumstances wherein you
were employed by the School District in one capacity and then subsequently
employed by the School District in another capacity does not violate Section
3(e) of the Ethics Act.
This Commission must note a matter of concern, however, regarding your
Statements of Financial Interests. Although you have been in positions of
public service since 1975 through the present, it appears that you have only
filed your statements for the calendar years 1984 through 1986. Accordingly,
you are hereby' di rected, within thirty (30) days to file Statements of
Financial Interests for the calendar years 1978 through 1983 and you are
further reminded that your statement for the calendar year 1987 will be due on
or before May 1, 1988.
C. Conclusion and Order:
1. As the former Superintendent of the Rose Tree Media School District,
you are a former public official subject to the provisions of Section
3(e) of the Ethics Act.
2. The evidence does not indicate a violation of the State Ethics Act
has occurred when you terminated your service as a superintendent of
the Rose Tree Media School District and thereafter became employed by
the School District in the capacity of a Chief Negotiator.
Mr. Henry Nac rel l i
Page 6
3. You are hereby directed, within thirty (30) days of this Order, to
file Statements of Financial Interests for the calendar years 1978
through 1983 and are reminded that your Statement of Financial
Interests for the calendar year 1987 must be filed on or before May
1, 1988. Failure to do so may result in further action.
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
lnd 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 by
releasing, discussing or circulating this Order.
An" person whc \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,
G. Sieber Pancoast
Chairman
Henry Nacrelli
Superintendent of Schools
420 Eldon Drive
Broomall, PA 19008
Dear Mr. Nacrelli:
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
P.O. BOX 11470
HARRISBURG, PA 17108 -1470
TELEPHONE (717) 783 -1610
March 29, 1988
We have received your Statements of Financial Interests for
calendar years 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982 and 1983.
This filing satisfies your filing obligation for calendar
years 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982 and 1983 in accordance with
Commission Order No. 638. You will also be required to file a
statement with your political subdivision each year you hold your
position and one year after leaving.
JJC /jdc
d ifir
nti
Execui�'ive Director
44 (lc s,ti ROSE TREE MEDIA SCHOOL DISTTRt�OTs
o
t', I n, y .3 1J 11
t, A 901 North Providence Road, Media, PA 19063 -14
(215) 565 -1200 ,� �`a 59 Ali
'
4FOIA, QP.
Henry T. Nacrelli
Superintendent
of Schools
G. Sieber Pancoast
State Ethics Commission
308 Finance Building
Harrisburg, PA 17120
Ref -Order #638
Dear Mr. Pancoast:
Cs C
Joseph E. Haviland
Director of Curriculum
and Instructional Services
I am in receipt of and thank you for your letter of March 16,
1988, concerning Order Number 638.
I have enclosed copies of my Act 170 for 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982
and 1983. These forms are on file with the Board Secretary of
the Rose Tree Media School District. Also I have enclosed a
letter from the school board solicitor dated January 17, 1980,
advising the Superintendent of Schools to begin filing Act 170
forms. As Assistant Superintendent in 1980, I followed the same
procedure.
Should you wish any additional information, I will make myself
available to your office.
HTN:rb
Enclosures
c J. Steuerwald
Sincerely,
March 22, 1988
enry /T. Nacrelli
Superintendent of Schools
Franklin D. Franus
Director of
Management Services