Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout092SR GrubeIn re: Karl Grube STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 File Docket: 00 -029 -P X -ref: Order No. 092 -S -R Date Decided: 9/20/00 Date Mailed: 10/5/00 Before: Louis W. Fryman, Vice Chair Julius Uehlein John J. Bolger Frank M. Brown Susan Mosites Bicket The State Ethics Commission received requests for reconsideration on Grube, Order No. 092 -S issued on July 13, 2000. Pursuant to Section 21.29 of the Regulations of the Commission, the discretion of the State Ethics Commission to grant reconsideration is properly invoked as follows: §21.29. Finality; reconsideration. (b) Any party may ask the Commission to reconsider an order or opinion within 15 days of service of the order or opinion. The requestor shall present a detailed explanation setting forth the reason why the order or opinion should be reconsidered. (c) A request for reconsideration filed with the Commission will delay the public release of an order, but will not suspend the final order unless reconsideration is granted by the Commission. (d) A request for reconsideration may include a request for a hearing before the Commission. (e) Reconsideration may be granted at the discretion of the Commission if: (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 or opinion and if these could not be or were not discovered by the exercise of due diligence. 51 Pa. Code §21.29(b), (c), (d), (e). This adjudication of the Commission is hereby issued which sets forth the Discussion and Reconsideration Order. This Reconsideration Order is final and shall be made available as a public document upon issuance. Grube, 092 -S -R 1 - 2 DISCUSSION On July 7, 2000, we issued Grube, Order No. 092 -S, following our review of the record in this case. This case involves civil penalty proceedings against Karl Grube, a Constable in Adams County who failed to file a Statement of Financial Interests (FIS) for the calendar year 1998 with this Commission. Following the process and procedure of this Commission, the prerequisite service of a Notice letter in accordance with Section 1107(5) was satisfied. Grube failed to comply with. the Ethics Act although given more than the usual grace period following Notice in which to do so. The Investigative Division then instituted formal proceedings against Grube by filing with this Commission and serving upon him a Petition for Civil Penalties. An Order to Show Cause was issued ordering Grube to show cause why a civil penalty should not be levied. Grube did not file an answer to the Order to Show Cause. Grube failed to show cause why a civil penalty should not be levied against him in this matter. On June 20, 2000 we determined that Grube, as a Constable, failed to file an FIS for the 1998 calendar year and imposed a civil penalty of $250.00 with a directive to file the FIS. Grube, Order 092 -S, was issued on July 7, 2000, as noted above. Both the Investigative Division and Grube timely filed for reconsideration. The Investigative Division states that when Grube contacted staff of this Commission in November 1999, he was told that the filing deficiency was resolved, that he would not be required to file an FIS and that he would be removed from the non - filer's list. The advice was given to Grube based upon his assertion that he was merely a poll watcher during elections, even though he was an officially elected constable. In apparent reliance on the advice of staff, Grube believed that the matter was resolved until he received the above referenced order. The records of the Commission reflect that Grube filed an FIS for calendar year 1998 on March 22, 2000. The Investigative Division requests that we grant reconsideration, eliminate the $250.00 penalty, but find a violation based upon Grube's failure to timely file an FIS for the 1998 calendar year. From the above, it is clear that there has been a material error of fact. Accordingly we grant reconsideration. As a consequence, we rescind our action as to imposing a civil penalty. We find that Grube failed to comply with Section 1104(a) of the Et Act when he failed to timely file an FIS with this Commission for the 1998 calendar year. Further, given that Grube has now filed the FIS for calendar year 1998, we shall take no further action in this case which is closed. In re: Karl Grube File Docket: 99- 025 -C2 Date Decided: 9/20/00 Date Mailed: 10/5/00 RECONSIDERATION ORDER NO. 092-S-R 1. The Petition for Reconsideration of Grube, Order No. 092 -S, is granted. 2. Grube failed to comply with Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act when he failed to timely file an FIS with the State Ethics Commission for the 1998 calendar year. 3. The imposed civil penalty of $250.00 is rescinded due to administrative error. 4. In that Grube has now filed a Financial Interest Statement for calendar year 1998 on March 22, 2000, this matter is closed. BY THE COMMISSION,