Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout156 Shoffner (2)Mrs. Herbert Shoffner RD #1 Lewisberry, PA 17339 Dear Mrs. Shoffner: Act are: STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 August 23, 1982 ORDER OF COMMISSION No. 156 RE: 82- 31- C(2 -2), 82- 33- C(2 -2) The State Ethics Commission has received a complaint regarding you and a possible violation of Act 170 of 1978. The Commission has now completed its investigation into these allegations and finds, no violation of the Ethics The individual allegations and findings on which our conclusion is based Allegation: That you, as assessor, changed or caused to be changed, the occu- pational assessment of an individual for your own private purposes. Findings: 1. You are an Assistant County Assessor in York County. This position is also called a Numerator. 2. As Assistant county assessor in York County you have the authority to change tax assessments but you have chosen not to exercise that authority. 3. You are a public employee under the terms of Act 170 because you hold a position which includes the authority to make recommendations eventhough you personally have chosen not to exercise that authority. 4. You rely on recommendations of the tax collector and the school district for changes in occupational tax classifications. 5. The school district has the final authority for occupational tax classification. 6. During the primary election of 1981, a newspaper announcement stated that Mr. Michael Poligone was running for public office. The statement indicated that Mr. Poligone was a "rate setter" at the Bethlehem Steel Corporation. About the same time Mr. Theodore Burd announced his candidacy and his announcement indicated that he was an executive in the West Shore Savings and Loan Association. Mrs. Herbert Shoffner August 23, 1982 Page 2 7. Both men were candidates for tax collector. 8. Shortly after that you received a telephone call from Mr. Clifford Bailets, Tax Collector, telling you to change the occupational tax classification for both Poligone and Burd. 9. You changed the classification; both persons appealed to the school district, and the district directed that their original classification be restored. Discussion: Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act prohibits a public official or public employee from using his or her public office or confidential informa- tion received from that office for personal financial gain. While you have discretionary authority, we are satisfied that you did not exercise that authority in these cases. You merely followed direction given to you and did not make decisions or misuse your public office or take actions which resulted in financial gain to yourself. Conclusion: Your action changing the occupational tax classifications of Burd and Poligone did not violate the Ethics Act (Act 170 - 1978). The Commission will take no further action in this matter. 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 file documentation with the Commission which justifies reconsideration and /or chal- lenges pertinent factual findings. During this 15 -day period, no one, including the Respondent unless he waives his right to challenge this Order, 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). EMS /rdp Sincerely, Paul J. Smith Chairman./