Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout99-550 GrucellaSTATE ETHICS COMMISSION 309 FINANCE BUILDING P.O. BOX 11470 HARRISBURG, PA 17108 -1470 (717) 783 -1610 1- 800 - 932 -0936 ADVICE OF COUNSEL May 18, 1999 Michael P. Clarke Groen, Laveson, Goldberg, & Rubenstone Four Greenwood Square, Suite 200, PO Box 8544 Bensalem, PA 19020 -8544 99 -550 Re: Conflict; Public Official /Employee; School; School Director; Engineer; Landlord; School Director - tenant; Bills for Services. Dear Mr. Clarke: This responds to your letter of April $, 1999 by which you requested advice from the State Ethics Commission. Issue: Whether the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act ( "Ethics Act "), 65 Pa.C.S. §1101 ., presents any prohibition or restrictions upon a school director from participating as to matters involving an engineer for the school district where the engineer is the landlord of the school director. Facts: Patricia J. Grucella (Grucella) is a Bristol Township School District Director who lost her home through foreclosure due to financial problems. The home was auctioned off at a public auction with the high bidder being an Engineer who serves at times as a consultant to the School District for construction projects. The Engineer has rented the home at fair market value back to Grucella and her spouse. When bills for the Engineer have come before the Board, Grucella has voted but now asks whether she may continue to do so. Discussion: It is initially noted that pursuant to Sections 1107(10) and 1107(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. It is further initially noted that, pursuant to the same aforesaid Sections of the Ethics Act, an opinion /advice may be given only as to prospective (future) conduct. If the activity in question has already occurred, the Commission may not issue an opinion /advice but any person may then submit a signed and sworn complaint which will be investigated by the Commission if there are allegations of Ethics Act violations by a person who is subject to the Ethics Act. To the extent you have inquired as to conduct which has already occurred, such past conduct may not be addressed in the FAX : (717) 787 - 0806 a Web Site: www.ethics.state.Da.us a e -mail: sec @state.oa.us Clarke/Grucella 99 -550 May 18, 1999 Page 2 context of an advisory opinion. However, to the extent you have inquired as to future conduct, your inquiry may, and shall be addressed. As District School Director for Bristol Township, Grucella is a public official as that term is defined in the Ethics Act, and hence she is subject to the provisions of that 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 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. 65 Pa.C.S. §1102. In addition, Sections 1 103(b) and 1103(c) of the Ethics Act provide in part that no person shall offer to a public official /employee anything of monetary value and no public official /employee shall solicit or accept anything of monetary value based upon the understanding that the vote, official action, or judgment of the public official /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. 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 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 Clarketermalia, 99 -550 May 1 811 999 Page 3 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). In each instance of a conflict, 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 applying the above provisions of''the Ethics Act to the instant matter, pursuant to Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, a ublic official /public employee is prohibited from using 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. Pursuant to Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, Grucella would have a conflict of interest as to matters involving the Engineer. This conclusion is based upon the State Ethics Commission's rulings in Bassi, Opinion No. 86- 007 -19, and Woodrinq, Opinion No. 90 -001. In Bassi Opinion No. 86- 007 -R, the State Ethics Commission held, inter alia, that a County Commissioner (Edward Paluso) could not enter into a lease with a municipal authority, where one of the members of the authority (Norman Carson) was a county employee directly responsible to the commissioners of the county, unless the execution of the lease was accomplished after an open and public process, with the authority member abstaining from participating in the review and award of said lease, and the county commissioner abstaining from participating in any matter relating to the authority member in his position as a county employee. The Commission stated, inter : .. we cannot ignore the fact that Mr. Carson is an authority member and has influence and control over authority decisions. In this respect, Mr. Carson, by voting on the final adoption of a lease, would be voting on a matter directly related to his employer. Even though that employer is another governmental body, we have held, in the past, that a public official may not vote or participate in a matter if it somehow relates to a financial interest which he may have. See, Welz, 86 -001. In the instant situation, Mr. Carson would be called upon to determine the advisability of renting property for the authority. The property which they are seeking to rent is owned by the individual or one of the individuals who currently supervises him and controls his public employment with the county. As a result of this, Mr. Carson, as an authority member, should abstain from participating in any matter relating to this particular lease. See, Bassi, 86 -007 at 3. The Commission further stated: Clarke /Grucella, 99 -550 May 18, 1999 Page 4 Mr. Paluso as a county commissioner, is, in part, responsible for the general supervision of Mr. Carson. Mr. Carson, on the other hand, is an authority member in a position to grant Mr. Paluso a lease which results in Mr. Paluso receiving a financial gain. It may be difficult for the public to perceive how Mr. Paluso's actions as a county official, would not somehow be influenced by this potential leasing arrangement. It may be argued that Mr. Paluso, in dealing with Mr. Carson, to date, has done so in order to effect the favorable outcome of this lease. Additionally, it could be argued that Mr. Carson voted in favor of the lease in order to advance his position as a full -time county employee. The above factual scenarios, while hypothetical in nature, nonetheless create the types of conflicts of interest that are to be addressed by this Commission. j at 4. In Woodrinq, Opinion No. 90 -001, the State Ethics Commission reviewed a similar situation. Jesse Woodring, Chairman of the Sunbury Redevelopment Authority, had applied to the City for a rehabilitation grant through the Federal Rental Rehabilitation Program (hereinafter, the "Program "). Kenneth Pick, who was employed as the Executive Director of the Redevelopment Authority (chaired by Woodring) also served as the Community Development Coordinator for Sunbury. In the latter capacity, Pick was administrator in charge of the Program for the City. Pick's functions included administering the Program, reviewing all applications, and determining eligibility. The Commission stated: we are concerned that Mr. Pick, who is an employee of the Redevelopment Authority of which you are Chairman, has the duty of reviewing all applications and determining eligibility in his capacity as Community Development Coordinator for the city. In particular, the potential exists, given the employer- employee relationship between the Redevelopment Authority and Mr. Pick, that your application might be reviewed in a more favorable light than other applications. To forestall such a situation, you must not participate or take any action as to Mr. Pick if your application is approved and you receive benefits. Bassi, Opinion 86 -007. In addition, Section 3 {j) of the Ethics Law would require you to publicly note that you would have a conflict as to any matter involving Mr. Pick. In addition, you must file a written memorandum to that effect with the person responsible for recording the minutes. Woodrinq, Opinion No. 90 -001 at 6. As was the case in the Bassi and Woodring rulings discussed above, the facts which you have submitted reflect that in her public position, Grucella exercises authority over the Engineer. In a private capacity, the Engineer is in the position of a landlord to Grucella. Therefore, for the reasons enunciated in Bassi and Woodrinq, supra, Grucella would have a conflict of interest pursuant to Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act in matters pertaining to the Engineer. In each instance of a conflict of interest, Grucella would be required to abstain from participation and to fully satisfy the disclosure requirements of Section 1103(j) as set forth above. 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. Clarke /Grucella, 99 -550 May 18, 1999 Page 5 Conclusion: As District School Director for Bristol Township, Patricia J. Grucella is a public official subject to the provisions of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act ( "Ethics Act "), 65 Pa.C.S. 51101 ei seq. Pursuant to Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, Grucella would have a conflict as to matters involving the Engineer who provides services to the School District where the Engineer in a private capacity Is the landlord of Grucella. Grucella could not participate in such matters, including bill approvals, and must satisfy the disclosure requirement of Section 1103(j) of the Ethics Act. Lastly, the propriety of the proposed conduct has only been addressed under the Ethics Act. 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 1. 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. ely, Vincent J. e o Chief Counsel