HomeMy WebLinkAbout69 Fitzpatrick (2)Mr. Charles F. Fitzpatrick
Miller & Murray
Attorneys -at -Law
540 Court Street
P. 0. Box 66
Reading, PA 19603
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120
ORDER OF THE COMMISSION
August 17, 1981
No. 69
#81 -14 -C
#81 -15 -C
Re: #81 -15 -C & #81 -14 -C
Dear Mr. Fitzpatrick:
The State Ethics Commission has received a complaint
regarding Mast Engineering and John Bechtel and a possible
violation of Act 170 of 1978. The Commission has now com-
pleted its investigation into these allegations and finds no
violation of Act 170.
The individual allegations and findings on which our
conclusion is based are:
Allegations: That Mast Engineering, in its capacity as
Consulting Engineers for the Authority, was asked to prepare
plans for the construction of a garage building for the
Authority; that Mast contracted with an Authority member,
John Bechtel, to perform drafting services for preparation
of the plans for the building; that Mast paid Mr. Bechtel
$1500 for the performance of these services and that this
transaction created a conflict of interest because the $1500
originated with the Authority.
Findings /Discussion: In the purpose of the Act, the Legis-
lature declared:
"That the people have a right to be assured that
the financial interest of holders of or candidates for
public office present neither a conflict nor the appear-
ance of a conflict with the public trust."
Mr. Charles F. Fitzpatrick
August 17, 1981
Page -2-
#81 -14 -C (1 -2)
?}81 -15 -C (2 -2)
Section 3(c) of the Act states:
"No public official or public employee or a member of
his immediate family or any business in which the
person or a member of the person's immediate family is
a director, officer, owner or holder of stock exceeding
5% of the equity at fair market value of the business
shall enter into any contract valued at $500 or more
with a governmental body unless the contract has been
awarded through an open and public process, including
prior public notice and subsequent public disclosure of
all proposals considered and contracts awarded. Any
contract made in violation of this subsection shall be
voidable by a court of competent jurisdiction if the
suit is commenced within 90 days of making of the
contract."
John Bechtel is a member and secretary of the Amity
Township Municipal Authority and Mast Engineering is re-
tained by the Authority for a fee. Mast Engineering con-
sultation fees cover specified areas and they are allowed to
bid in all other areas.
Authority minutes submitted by you show that on June
11, 1980, Mr. Bechtel offered to get a price on the building
and on August 18, submitted a price of $20,500. On that
date, Mast Engineering was instructed to prepare drawings.
The low bid of $32,000 was rejected because the Authority
did not want to spend that much money.
Mast Engineering submitted invoices in the amount of
$1700 to the Authority. Fifteen- hundred- and -fifty dollars
of that was the fee for Mr. Bechtel's drafting services
associated with the preparation of drawings for the'Authority's
building. There was no contradiction to the statement that
this bill was paid and Mr. Bechtel received his payment.
The employment of Mr. Bechtel by Mast Engineering is
not recorded in the Authority minutes and, in your opinion,
a vote was not necessary for this action. The employment
apparently was an informal arrangement between Mr. Eways of
Mast Engineering and Mr. Bechtel. Our investigation fails
to disclose any substantive evidence that Mr. Bechtel could
have reasonably expected to enter into this arrangement at
the time the Authority instructed Mast to prepare drawings
for the proposed building.
Mr. Charles F. Fitzpatrick
August 17, 1981
Page -3-
E81 -14 -C (1 -2)
#81 -15 -C (2 -2)
Conclusion: While we find no violation of Act 170 in these
circumstances, the Commission has previously ruled that
there may be an appearance of a conflict of interest where
an official participates in a decision of his or her govern-
mental body to award a contract and then sub - contracts with
that contractor. The Commission noted that this appearance
could be avoided by following the open and public process of
Section 3(c) of Act 170. They also stated that the official
should abstain from participation in a contracting decision
if he or she has a reasonable expectation of becoming a sub-
contractor in that project. Adherence to These guidelines
would avoid the possibility of a conflict of interest in the
future.
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 and will become available
as a public document within 15 days unless you tile documen-
tation with the Commission which justifies reconsideration
and /or challenges pertinent factual findings made.
During this 15 -day period, no one, including the Respondent
and /or Complainant, may violate this confidentiality 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
$1000 or imprisoned for not more than one year or both, see
65 P.S. 409(e).
PJS /jc
Sincerely,
aul 4/. Smith
Chairman