Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout680 RiegerRepresentative William W. Rieger 1141 Rising Sun Avenue Philadelphia, PA 19140 Re: 88 -003 -C t ; lf�r STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA I912p ORDER OR= THE " COMMISSION ORDER NO. 680 DATE DECIDED: September 28, 1988 DATE MAILED: October 13, 1988 Dear Representative Rieger: The State Ethics Commission has reviewed the allegation(s) that you have violated the Ethics Act, Act 170 of 1978. The nature bf the alleged violation(s) is as follows: -I. Allegation: That you, a member of the House of Representatives for the 179th Legislative District, violated the following provisions of the State Ethics Act (Act 170 of 1978), when you used Commonwealth Stationery, mailing systems and postage to mail letters to members cif the 43rd Ward Executive Committee in your District, encouraging tholl to support your re- election campaign. 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. Code §403(a). A. Findings: 1. You serve as a member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, for the 179th Legislative District. a. You have served in this position for 22 yearg. 2. You were a candidate for re- election to that office, the May 1988 Primary Election. running in 3% On November 13, 1987, approximately 60 letters were sent to atebbers of the 43rd Ward Democratic Executive Committee and to constituents, in your district, requesting their support-for your re- election campaign. Representative William W. Rieger Page 2 a. The letters were signed by you. . The letters were typed on the official stationery of the House of Representatives and mailed in envelopes of the House of Representatives. c. The envelopes were stamped with $.22 postage, meter No. 6108655, which is paid_ for by the House of Representatives. d. The letters were postmarked Harrisburg,: Pennsylvania, 4. Qn January 5, 1988, approximately 60 letters were sent to members of the 43rd Ward Democratic Executive Committee, requesting their support in circulating nominating petitions for your -- election. a. The letters were signed by you. :b. The letters Were typed on the official stationery of the House of Representatives and mailed in the envelopes of the House- of Representatives. c. The envelopes were stamped with $.22 postage from meter No. 408655, which is paid for by the House of Representatives. d. The letters were postmarked Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. 5. On January 14, 1988, approximately 60 letters were sent to: a. Members of the 43rd Ward Democratic Executive Committee, requesting them to pick up committeeman's petitions from John Welsh at your District Office. b. Constituents, in your District, requesting their support for your re- election campaign. (i) An endorsement from Philadelphia Mayor Wilson Goode was englosec with the constituent letters. (ii) The letters to the Executive Committee were sent on the stationery of the House of Representatives and signed by you. (aii)They were mailed in the envelopes of the House of Representatives and were stamped with a regular U.S. postage stamp. Representative William W. Rieger •Page 3 _ The letters to the constituents were sent on the official stationery of the House-of Representat'ives and --were = Signed by you. r (v) They were mailed in envelopes of the House of •Representatives and were stamped with r2=2. ' from meter NG. 6108655, which paid for by thegHouse of Representatives. A11= of letters were postmarked Harrisburg,' 'Pennsylvania. 6. On January 21, 1988, approximately 60 letters'here` sent :to members of the 43rd Ward Democratic Executive Committee - *nnouncinq a meeting at 4001 North 6th Street, for the ur ose of pie paring P P preparing for the a. It = requested the members to bring the completed with them. y.: P 'Petitions b. The letters were sent on the official stationery of the House of Representatives and were signed `by'you. `= c. The letters were mailed in the envelopes of the House of Representatives and were stamped with Postage, Ancam meter-NO -6108655, which is paid for by the House of Representatives. d. The letters were postmarked Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. 7. On March 16, 1988, you notified the State Ethics Commission that two mailings were made to committee people, in your district on Commonwealth stationery. r �; :• :i.;_ a. You estimated the cost, of the two mailings to be $104.85 and stated that 3iou' reimbursed the Commonweal - th- for't} t amount. b. You enclosed a "dopy of ybdr check No. 304, made out in that amount, to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, House of `Representative's. - r ±. 8. On 12 occasions, during the last primary and general elections, you used your legislative- district office for meetings. of the 43rd Ward Democratic Executive Committee. a. The meetings wet'e'held to support if re- election campaign. b. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania pays $300 a month rent for the Disrict Office, to John and Marion Welsh, who are owners of the property. 9. Members of the 43rd Ward Democratic Executive Committee and constituents from -your district were interviewed and a number of them stated: Representative William W. Rieger Page 4 10. Rose Baker provided the following information in relation to this situation: She is presently employed by you as a Research Analyst in your Harrisburg office. { b. She has worked for you, in Harrisburg, for 21 years. c. She types all letters dealing with your re- election campaign at her home. , ) The letters are typed on plain stationery and mailed in plain envelopes with postage paid for by you. a. They received letters from you, on stationery of the House of Representatives and in envelopes of the House of Representatives, stamped with meter postage The letters sought their support for your re- election campaign. The envelopes also contained endorsements from Mayor W. Wilson. Goode of Philadelphia and Governor Robert Casey. They attended meetings of the 43rd Ward Democratic Eicecutive Committee at your District Office, located at 4001 North 6th Street in Philadelphia. The meetings concerned your re- election campaign. d. She mistakenly typed letters dealing with your re- elution campaign, on four occasions, on the stationery of the House of Representatives. She brought the letters into your Harrisburg office for you to sign. (i) They mistakenly became mixed with letters that were to be sent to your constituents concerning other matters. ( _ 3 1 . (ii) You personally signed the letters without reading them. (iii)The letters were mailed in envelopes of the House of Representatives. Representative William W. Rieger .► Page 5 (iv) On three occasions, all the letters were mailed using the House's postage system. On the fourth occasion, some of the letters were mailed using the House's : postage system, and others had regular postage that were paid for by you. (v) She estimated that 50 to 60 letters were sent on each occasion. 11- John Welsh, a part -time legislative aide, in your Philadelphia office, was interviewed and stated: a. You Held meetings of the 43rd Ward Democratic Executive Committee in your district office on 12 occasions because of the large number of committee members attending. 12. You provided the following information in relation to this situations a. You have been a member of the House of Representatives for 22 years and you are presently chairman of the House Ethics Committee. b. You were a candidate for re- election in the Democratic Primary in May 1988, c. You became aware, during the primary campaign, that material supporting your re- election was sent out on two occasions,, on the stationery of the House of Representatives, using the metered postage system of the Huse. You explained that the mailings were the result of a mistake on the part of your office staff and that you made restitution in the amount of $104 to the House of Representatives. d. You were unaware of the two additional mailings and you would have your office staff determine if the additional allegation was true. (i) You intend to make restitution for those mailings. e. Your district office is located at 4001 North 6th Street in Philadelphia. (i) The House of Representatives pays $300 a month rFnt to John and Marion Welsh for the office space. Representative William W. Rieger Page :6 You rent an adjoining room from _John and Marion Welsh for .$100 a..month. (iii)The adjoining room is normallyused meetings for the 43rd Ward-Democratic Ececutive'Commirttee. During the past general and prima election .campaigns, because of the ,unusually large number of Committee members attending the meetings - , it became -necessary to use ,the District Office. (v) The- meetings concerned your re- election. f . .You denied the allegation that you reside at -94D0 Frankford Avenue, Philadelphia, which is outside of your legislative i stri.ct,. /(i ghe ; deed tor that property reflects that it 4is owned by you, your wife and your son. (ii) Yqu as,tate that you -stay there occasionally ,because of family matters. (iii)You state you reside at 1141 Rising Sun Avenue, a ; property within -your legislative district. B. Discussion: As a Representative for the 179th !Legislative District of the ,Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, you are a public official as that term is defined under the Ethics Act. $5 P.S. S402; 51 .Pe. Code ..x1.1. As such, your conduct is subject to the Ethics Act and restrictions therein are applicable to you. Section 3(a) quoted above specifically provides: in part that a public official may not use public office to obtain a financial gain for himself - other than compensation provided by law. This.C_ommission has applied the above provision of law to situations involving mebers of the .General Assembly regarding their use of t legislative office as well as personnel, equipment, supplies and .expenditures for re-election purposes. In Rappaport, Order 126 and Mcelat2hy, Order 130, this Commission that a public :official could not use the Commonwealth mailing systems and postage meters for the dissemination of election or other campaign materials. Additionally, a public official /employee may not use public office, equipment, supplies or personnel for personal non public uses. Street, Opinion 81 -005; Dorrance, Order 456. Further, it has been decided that an elected public official may not use public office or a district office ior Representative- .William,-W. Rieger Page 7 personal, or campaign- activities. Cessar, Opinion 82 002 See also Fee, Advice 86 - In_ the instant mutter, you have on at least four occasions sent out_batches of sixty letters relating to your re- election on'°fficial House, of_ Representatives stationery which has been typed on` Commonwealth equi mentby House staff at public expense and lastly sent .. out bx postage meter at taxpayer expense. Although you state thaw the mailing- ways a mistake on the part of your office staffs it is clear that these letters were on Commonwealth stationery and you personally signed same. Since it can only be assumed that you review what you sign, you read or must be deemed to have read the campaign- materials sent out at public expense. You have violated the public trust by using public office as a weans of aiding your re- election efforts. Such actions violated' Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act. Section 9(c) of the Ethics Act provides: Section 9. Penalties. (c) Any person who obtains financial gain from violating any provision of this act, in addition to any other penalty provided by law, shall pay into the State Treasury a sum of money equal to three times the financial gain resulting from such violation. 65 P.S. §409(c). The postage for 4 batches of 60 mailings at $0.22 per letter amounts to $52.80. Considering the envelopes, stationery and equipment used and staff typing time, it is appropriate to impose a treble penalty in this case of $158.40. Commonwealth Court his• upheld the right of this Commission to order restitution or 'impose a penalty. See McCutcheon v. State Ethics Commission, 77 Pa. Commw. Ct. 529, 466 A.2d 283 (1983); Yocabet v. State Ethics Commission, '?' Pa. Commw. Ct. , 531 A.2d 536 (1987). w, As to the matter of your use of a district office for re- election activities, the facts establish a regular and continued course of conduct on your part for misusing your district office for re- election activities. In Cessar, supra, this Commission determined that a member of the General Assembly could not use his district office for campaign re- election activity. Such conduct on your part violated the Ethics Act. Lastly, a serious question exists as to whether you have violated other laws concerning the requirement that you reside in your legislative district. Accordingly, this Commission will refer this Representative William W. Rieger Page =8 matter to the appropriate law enforcement authority for review and appropriate action - as,to the Ethics -Act violations as well as to possible violatidns of other .laws which might warrant prosecution. C. Conclusion and Order: 1. As a member of the Hou ,of Representatiyes, you :,are .a public offic Houma of subject to the provisions of the Ethics Act. ,, 2. You violated ,Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act Awl you used Commonwealth House of Representative letterhead stationery, metered postage, equipment and staff to send cut re- election materials. 3. You are hereby ordered to pay a treble penalty of $158.40 by forwarding a check to the State Ethics commission within thirty days (30) of the date of this Order payable to the order of the the State Treasury of Pennsylvar}4.a . 4. You violated Section} 3(a) of the Ethics Act when you used your district office for re- election campaign purposes. This matter will be referred to the appropriate law enforcement authority for review and appropriate action as to the violations of the Ethics Act but also as to possible violations of other - laws. Our files in this case will remain, confidential in accordance with Section 8(a) of the Ethics: Act, 65 P S:. §40a(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 52..35;. During this 15- day period, no one, including "the respondent unless he-waives his right to challenge this Order, may violate this confider }tiality 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 tYan one Year or both, see 65 P.S. §409(e). Joseph W, Marshall, III - Ch, irman