HomeMy WebLinkAbout721-R SaugerRe: 87 -034 -C
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120
RECONSIDERATION ORDER OF THE COMMISSION
Order No. 721 -R
Before: Helena G. Hughes, Chair
Robert W. Brown, Vice Chair
G. Sieber Pancoast
Dennis C. Harrington
James M. Howley
Date Decided: October 26, 1989
Date Mailed: November 8 198
Mr. Fred Sauger
c/o Mr. Dennis Govochini
P.O. Box 217
311 -312 First United Federal Bldg.
Ebensburg, PA 15931
Dear Mr. Sauger:
This refers to the request for Reconsideration presented on
October 13, 1989, with respect to the above - captioned Order
issued on September 28, 1989 pursuant to 51 Pa. Code 2.38. The
discretion of the State Ethics Commission to grant
reconsideration is properly invoked, pursuant to our regulations,
51 Pa. Code 2.38(b) when:
(b) Any party may ask the Commission to reconsider an
Order within 15 days of service of the Order. The
person requesting reconsideration should present a
detailed explanation setting forth the reason why the
Order should be reconsidered. Reconsideration may be
granted at the discretion of the Commission only where
any of the following occur:
(1) a material error of law has been made;
(2) a material error of fact has been made;
(3) new facts or evidence are provided which
would lead to reversal or modification
of the order and where these could not
be or were not discovered previously by
the exercise of due diligence.
Mr. Fred Sauger
Page 2
The Commission, having reviewed your request, must DENY your
request because none of these circumstances is present.
You present two general objections to certain Findings and
phraseology in the Discussion portion of the Order.
As to the objection to the Findings, you argue that the word
"lodging" should be deleted from paragraph 11(a) because the
township did not pay for lodging and you paid for one -third of
same. In paragraph 14(c), you assert that the appropriate amount
of the check was $180.85, not $154.85. Your third factual
challenge relates to paragraph 15(a) wherein you indicate that
the appropriate amount should be $180.85 and not $200.00.
As to your first objection, we have a situation where You
and the Investigative Discussion have entered into a Stipulation
of Findings which formed the basis of the submission of this
case. You now seek to challenge these factual findings to which
ou have already agreed. Clearly, since you submitted these
factual findings, there is no basis to seek modification thereof.
Your second basis for seeking reconsideration relates to
phraseology contained in the Discussion of the Order. Once again
your present three specific objections as to the wording of
sentences in the Discussion. First, you seek to have the April
1986 excess reimbursement computed without mentioning that it
relates to registration costs, lodging and meals. You state that
lodging was not previously paid for by the township. Secondly
and similarly, you ask that the overpayment as to the September
1986 seminar indicate the amount without making reference to the
circumstances of the overpayment. Third, you request deletion of
similar phraseology relative to the overpayment for the March
1987 seminar.
Clearly, you have not established or even claimed any
material error of fact or law to warrant the grant of
reconsideration. Your second basis for reconsideration merely
seeks the deletion of certain phrases in the Discussion portion
of the Order. We feel this amounts to an attempt on your part to
tailor our Order to phraseology which you consider suitable.
Such is inappropriate and presents no basis for granting
reconsideration.
In light of the foregoing, the State Ethics Commission
concludes that your request for reconsideration must be DENIED.
Mr. Fred Sauger
Page 3
Accordingly, you have thirty (30) days from the date of this
Reconsideration denial to comply with the terms set forth in the
original Order. That Order and this decision denying
reconsideration are final and shall be made available as public
documents on the fifth (5th) business day following the date of
this Order.
By t -e Co issigfi,
S elena G. Hughes
Chair
Re: 87 -034 -C
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
P.O. BOX 11470
HARRISBURG, PA 17108 -1470
TELEPHONE (717) 783 -1610
September 25, 1989
Mr. Fred Sauger
c/o Dennis Govachini, Esquire
P.O. Box 217
311-312 First United Federal Bldg.
Ebensburg, PA 15931
Dear Mr. Sauger:
On September 21, 1989, the State Ethics Commission received
your payment for reimbursing Cambria Township as required by the
State Ethics Commission.
When the State Ethics Commission issues an Order in this
case, we will forward your check_No. 0361 dated September 6,
1989, in the amount of $588.28 to Cambria Township.
This letter will be part of the Order and a public record as
such.
JJC /na
Si
oz_ o
Exec lye Director