Loading...
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