Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00-620 StewartDear Mr. Stewart: ADVICE OF COUNSEL October 23, 2000 Arthur J. Stewart, Esquire Swanson, Bevevino, Gilford and Stewart, P.C. P.O. Box 97, 311 Market Warren, PA 16365 00 -620 Re: Conflict; Public Official /Employee; School Director; Use of Authority of Office; Confidential Information; Immediate Family; Spouse; Teacher; Negotiations; Executive Session; Vote. This responds to your letters of July 31, 2000 and September 14, 2000 by which you requested advice from the State Ethics Commission. Issue: Whether the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act ( "Ethics Act ") presents any prohibition or restrictions upon a School Director whose spouse is employed by the School District as a teacher, with regard to participating or even being present at an executive session when contract negotiations involving his spouse will be discussed. Facts: As Solicitor for the Warren County School District ( "School District ") Board of chool Directors ("Board "), you request an advisory on behalf of Randall A. Peterson ( "Peterson "), a Member of the Board. Peterson's spouse is employed as a teacher for the School District. You ask whether Peterson may be present at an Executive Session of the Board where the issue of the negotiations for a contract involving his spouse will be discussed. You state that it is anticipated that during such discussion, the Board will be reviewing with its Labor Counsel confidential information concerning negotiation strategies and dollar amounts. If Peterson may be present at the Executive Session, you ask whether he is permitted to participate in the discussion. Further, you ask whether there are any limitations that exist with respect to sharing confidential information with Peterson in such a setting. Discussion: It is initially noted that pursuant to Sections 1107(10) and (11) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § §1107(10), (11), advisories are issued to the requestor based upon the facts which the requestor has submitted. In issuing the advisory based upon the facts which the requestor has submitted, the Commission does not engage in an independent investigation of the facts, nor does it speculate as to facts which have not been submitted. It is the burden of the requestor to truthfully disclose all of the material facts relevant to the inquiry. 65 Pa.C.S. § §1107(10), (11). An advisory only affords a defense to the extent the requestor has truthfully disclosed all of the material facts. Stewart, 00 -620 October 23, 2000 Page 2 In his capacity as a School Director, Peterson is a public official subject to the Ethics Act. Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act provides: Section 1103. Restricted activities (a) Conflict of interest. - -No public official or public employee shall engage in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest. 65 Pa.C.S. §1103(a). The following terms related to Section 1103(a) are defined in the Ethics Act as follows: Section 1102. Definitions "Conflict" or "conflict of interest." Use by a public official or public employee of the authority of his office or employment or any confidential information received through his holding public office or employment for the private pecuniary benefit of himself, a member of his immediate family or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. The term does not include an action having a de minimis economic impact or which affects to the same degree a class consisting of the general public or a subclass consisting of an industry, occupation or other group which includes the public official or public employee, a member of his immediate family or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. "Authority of office or employment." The actual power provided by law, the exercise of which is necessary to the performance of duties and responsibilities unique to a particular public office or position of public employment. "Immediate family." A parent, spouse, child, brother or sister. 65 Pa.C.S. §1102. The use of authority of office is more than the mere mechanics of voting and encompasses all of the tasks needed to perform the functions of a given position. See, Juliante, Order No. 809. Use of authority of office includes, but is not limited to, discussing, conferring with others, lobbying for a particular result, and voting. Section 1103(j) of the Ethics Act provides as follows: Section 1103. Restricted activities (j) Voting conflict. - -Where voting conflicts are not otherwise addressed by the Constitution of Pennsylvania or by any law, rule, regulation, order or ordinance, the following procedure shall be employed. Any public official or public employee who in the discharge of his official duties would be required to vote on a matter that would result in a conflict of Stewart, 00 -620 October 23, 2000 Page 3 interest shall abstain from voting and, prior to the vote being taken, publicly announce and disclose the nature of his interest as a public record in a written memorandum filed with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting at which the vote is taken, provided that whenever a governing body would be unable to take any action on a matter before it because the number of members of the body required to abstain from voting under the provisions of this section makes the majority or other legally required vote of approval unattainable, then such members shall be permitted to vote if disclosures are made as otherwise provided herein. In the case of a three - member governing body of a political subdivision, where one member has abstained from voting as a result of a conflict of interest and the remaining two members of the governing body have cast opposing votes, the member who has abstained shall be permitted to vote to break the tie vote if disclosure is made as otherwise provided herein. 65 Pa.C.S. §1103(j). If a conflict exists, Section 1103(j) requires the public official /employee to abstain and to publicly disclose the abstention and reasons for same, both orally and by filing a written memorandum to that effect with the person recording the minutes or supervisor. In the event that the required abstention results in the inability of the governmental body to take action because a majority is unattainable due to the abstention(s) from conflict under the Ethics Act, then in that event participation is permissible provided the disclosure requirements noted above are followed. See, Mlakar, Advice 91- 523 -S. The above provisions of the Ethics Act shall now be applied to your inquiry. Subject to certain exceptions delineated in the definition of "conflict" or "conflict of interest" above, it is a conflict of interest under Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act for a public official /public employee to use the authority of public office /employment or confidential information received by holding such a public position for the private pecuniary benefit of the public official /public employee himself, any member of his immediate family, or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. In this case, Peterson's spouse is a member of his "immediate family." The seminal Commission decision which applies Section 1103(a) (former Section 3(a)) of the Ethics Act under facts similar to those which you have submitted is Van Rensler, Opinion 90 -017. The issue in Van Rensler was whether the Ethics Act prohibited school directors from participating on a negotiating team and voting on a collective bargaining agreement where members of their immediate families were school district employees who were represented by the bargaining units. The Commission concluded that the Ethics Act would not restrict the school directors from voting on the finalized agreement, but that the school directors could not take part in the negotiations leading to the finalized agreement. The Commission held that the school directors could vote on the finalized agreement because of the exclusion in the definition of "conflict" or "conflict of interest" which applies if the immediate family member is a member of a subclass consisting of an industry, occupation or other group containing more than one member and the immediate family member is affected exactly as the other members of the subclass. The Commission held that as long as the two prerequisites for applying the exclusion were met, the school directors could vote on the final collective bargaining agreement. Stewart, 00 -620 October 23, 2000 Page 4 However, the Commission held that the Ethics Act would preclude the participation of such school directors in the negotiation process. In so holding, the Commission noted that the negotiation process would be free of any influence of such a school director and that the potential for the use of confidential information would be "minimized if not eliminated." Id., at 4 -5. Thus, a fundamental focus of the Van Rensler Opinion was precluding the use of confidential information obtained through the public office as school director to defeat the bargaining process. Having set forth the above principles, your specific inquiries shall be addressed. Based upon Van Rensler, supra, Peterson would be prohibited from: (1) participating or even being present at an Executive Session of the Board when contract negotiations involving Peterson's spouse would be discussed; or (2) receiving confidential information regarding the negotiation process, including but not limited to negotiation strategies or dollar amounts. Id. Peterson could vote on the finalized agreement if the class /subclass exclusion would apply. In order for that exclusion to apply, the immediate family member must be in a class /subclass consisting of more than just one person with the immediate family member being affected to the same degree as the other members of the class /subclass. See, Davis, Opinion No. 89 -012. Assuming these two conditions would be met, that is, assuming Peterson's spouse would be in a class /subclass consisting of more than just one person and would be affected to the same degree as the other members of the class /subclass, Peterson would be permitted to vote on the finalized contract. This Advice is limited to addressing the applicability of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act. It is expressly assumed that there has been no use of authority of office for a private pecuniary benefit as prohibited by Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act. Further, you are advised that Sections 1103(b) and 1103(c) of the Ethics Act provide in part that no person shall offer to a public official /public employee and no public official /public employee shall solicit or accept anything of monetary value based upon the understanding that the vote, official action, or judgment of the public official /public employee would be influenced thereby. Reference is made to these provisions of the law not to imply that there has been or will be any transgression thereof but merely to provide a complete response to the question presented. Lastly, the propriety of the proposed conduct has only been addressed under the Ethics Act; the applicability of any other statute, code, ordinance, regulation or other code of conduct other than the Ethics Act has not been considered in that they do not involve an interpretation of the Ethics Act. Specifically not addressed herein is the applicability of the Public School Code. Conclusion: As a School Director for the Warren County School District ( "School District "), Randall A. Peterson ( "Peterson ") is a public official subject to the provisions of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. §1101 et seq. ( "Ethics Act "). Peterson's spouse, who is a teacher in the School District, is a member of Peterson's immediate family. Pursuant to Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, Peterson would be prohibited from: (1) participating or even being present at an Executive Session of the School District's Board of School Directors when contract negotiations involving Peterson's spouse would be discussed; or (2) receiving confidential information regarding the negotiation process, including but not limited to negotiation strategies or dollar amounts. Peterson could vote on the finalized agreement if the class /subclass exclusion would apply, that is, if his spouse would be in a class /subclass consisting of more than just one person and would be affected to the same degree as the other members of the class /subclass. Stewart, 00 -620 October 23, 2000 Page 5 Pursuant to Section 1107(11), an Advice is a complete defense in any enforcement proceeding initiated by the Commission, and evidence of good faith conduct in any other civil or criminal proceeding, provided the requestor has disclosed truthfully all the material facts and committed the acts complained of in reliance on the Advice given. This letter is a public record and will be made available as such. Finally, if you disagree with this Advice or if you have any reason to challenge same, you may appeal the Advice to the full Commission. A personal appearance before the Commission will be scheduled and a formal Opinion will be issued by the Commission. Any such appeal must be in writing and must be actually received at the Commission within thirty (30) days of the date of this Advice pursuant to 51 Pa. Code §13.2(h ). The appeal may be received at the Commission by hand delivery, United States mail, delivery service, or by FAX transmission (717 -787- 0806). Failure to file such an appeal at the Commission within thirty (30) days may result in the dismissal of the appeal. Sincerely, Vincent J. Dopko Chief Counsel