HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-008 BybelI. ISSUE:
Paul M. Yatron, Esquire
Mogel, Speidel, Bobb & Kershner
520 Walnut Street
P.O. Box 8581
Reading, PA 19603 -8581
Dear Mr. Yatron:
OPINION OF THE COMMISSION
Before: Louis W. Fryman, Chair
John J. Bolger, Vice Chair
Daneen E. Reese
Frank M. Brown
Susan Mosites Bicket
Donald M. McCurdy
Michael J. Healey
DATE DECIDED: 9/5/02
DATE MAILED: 9/25/02
02 -008
Re: Conflict; Public Official /Employee; County; Salary Board; Coroner; Use of Authority of
Office; Hiring: Immediate Family; Daughter; Chief Deputy Coroner; Appeal; Advice of
Counsel.
This Opinion is issued in response to the appeal of Advice of Counsel, 02 -577, which
was issued on July 22, 2002.
Whether the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act ( "Ethics Act "), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101
et seq., presents any prohibition or restrictions upon a county coroner with regard to hiring his
daughter as chief deputy coroner.
II. FACTUAL BASIS FOR DETERMINATION:
By letter dated August 8, 2002, you appealed Advice of Counsel, 02 -577 issued July
22, 2002.
In your initial letter requesting an advisory, you presented the following facts.
In January 2002 Dr. Nicholas Bybel ( "Bybel ") took office as Coroner of Berks County
( "County "), a Third Class County. Bybel would like to hire his daughter, Gretchen Bybel,
Bybel - Yatron, 02 -008
September 25, 2002
Page 2
M.D., as Chief Deputy Coroner. Bybel's daughter is a medical doctor licensed in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. She is also a graduate of the Coroner's Education course
administered by the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General.
The question that you posed in your initial inquiry was whether Bybel would have a
conflict of interest under the Ethics Act with regard to the hiring of his daughter as Chief
Deputy Coroner. In your request letter, you stated that Bybel's statutory authority with regard
to the hiring and selection of employees is governed by Sections 1231 and 1620 of the
County Code. You further stated that while those sections grant to the elected Coroner broad
discretion in selecting his deputies, no one may be officially hired nor may any compensation
be set without the approval of the County Salary Board, consisting of the three County
Commissioners, the County Controller, and for purposes of hiring deputies for the Berks
County Coroner, Bybel as Coroner. It was your contention that the final decision on hiring
belongs to the Salary Board, and not to Bybel individually.
Advice of Counsel, 02 -577 determined that Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act would
prohibit Bybel from hiring his daughter as Chief Deputy Coroner and /or participating as a
member of the County Salary Board in setting her salary, because such actions would
constitute uses of the authority of his public office for the private pecuniary benefit of a
member of his immediate family. The Advice determined that per certain sections of the
County Code, it is Bybel's authority of office as Coroner to appoint deputy coroners and to sit
as a member of the County Salary Board when that Board sets the number or salaries of his
deputies or other employees. The Advice reasoned that the authority of Bybel's office as
County Coroner is therefore defined to include authority as to the appointment and setting of
the salary of the Chief Deputy Coroner, and that the use of that authority of office to hire his
own daughter - -a member of his immediate family -- and /or to set her salary, would result in a
private pecuniary benefit to the daughter, such that all of the elements for a conflict of interest
under Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act would be established.
Citing this Commission's recent decision in Confidential Opinion, 02 -004, the Advice
further concluded that if there is no pre - existing conflict mechanism in place specifying how
and by whom Bybel's authority is to be exercised as to the hiring of his daughter, Bybel's
delegation of such authority to a subordinate would itself constitute a use of authority of office
in contravention of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act.
Finally, Advice 02 -577 concluded that to the extent Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act
would apply, the proposed hiring of Bybel's daughter would necessarily result in the
transgression of Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act based upon Bybel's inherent supervisory or
overall responsibility as to the Chief Deputy Coroner.
By letter dated August 8, 2002, you appealed Advice of Counsel, 02 -577. Your appeal
letter did not state any particular basis for the appeal, but merely exercised the right to appeal
the Advice of Counsel.
By letter dated August 9, 2002, you were notified of the date, time and location of the
public meeting at which your request would be considered.
On August 27, 2002, this Commission received a second letter from you, which letter
enclosed an Affidavit executed by Bybel. Bybel's Affidavit notes the following:
(1) that Bybel believes that only duly trained and licensed physicians are qualified
to serve as Coroner or Chief Deputy Coroner;
(2) that the position of County Chief Deputy Coroner is a full -time position;
Bybel - Yatron, 02 -008
September 25, 2002
Page 3
(3)
(4) that the salary paid to the County Chief Deputy Coroner is vastly lower than the
income earned by licensed physicians in the County;
that Bybel's daughter is a fully qualified licensed physician who has also been
certified under the coroner education course administered by the Pennsylvania
Office of Attorney General;
(6) that Bybel's daughter is willing to accept the position of Chief Deputy Coroner in
the County;
that the hiring of Bybel's daughter would benefit the County in that she is fully
qualified for the position and is willing to accept it at a salary lower than other
physicians are willing to accept;
(8) that Bybel himself would not derive any private pecuniary benefit from the hiring
of his daughter as Chief Deputy Coroner; and
(5)
(7)
(
In your letter, you presented the following arguments:
(1) that Advice of Counsel 02 -577 has the effect of depriving the County of the
services of a highly qualified individual willing to accept the position of Chief
Deputy Coroner at a salary much lower than anyone else with her qualifications;
(2) that if Bybel would not participate in the deliberations or vote of the Salary
Board, there would be no violation of the Ethics Act, and that a ruling by this
Commission to the contrary would construe the Ethics Act as a "mere anti -
nepotism statute, irrespective of the merits of a particular hiring action" (Yatron
letter of August 27, 2002, at 1);
that to the extent Bybel would abstain from the action of the Salary Board with
regard to approving the hiring and setting the salary for his daughter, Bybel
should not be viewed as having "used" his public office for the receipt by his
daughter of improper pecuniary benefits to which she was not entitled; and
(4) that Commonwealth Court's decision in the case of Kraines v. State Ethics
Commission, No. 3018 C.D. 2001 (Pa. Cmwlth. August 23, 2002) (2002 Pa.
Commw. LEXIS 660) supports Bybel's position, in that the County would not
suffer any adverse economic consequence if Bybel's daughter would be
employed as County Chief Deputy Coroner and any economic impact would be
de minimis in the sense that payments made to Controller Kraines' husband
were found to be so.
(3)
that Bybel has unsuccessfully attempted to recruit a number of physicians in
the County to serve as Chief Deputy Coroner;
that Bybel's daughter is not a member of his household.
At the public meeting on September 5, 2002, you appeared and offered commentary,
which may be fairly summarized as follows.
First, you stated your agreement that any action taken by the Salary Board regarding
Dr. Gretchen Bybel would have to be taken without Bybel's participation in any way, such that
he would have to recuse himself and he would not be able to appoint someone to act in his
stead.
Second, you reiterated your argument that if the Salary Board were to hire Dr.
Bybel - Yatron, 02 -008
September 25, 2002
Page 4
Gretchen Bybel to the position of Chief Deputy Coroner and set her salary without any
participation from Bybel, no violation of the Ethics Act would occur. It was your contention that
the official action as to the hiring would be taken by the Salary Board and not by Bybel as
Coroner, such that there would be no "use of authority of office" by Bybel. Nevertheless, you
acknowledged that as Coroner, Bybel selects the people whom he wants to be hired and
presents them before the Salary board to ask and recommend that they be hired. As for the
setting of salaries, you stated that the Salary Board has complete discretion in setting salaries
irrespective of the recommendations that a department head might make.
Third, you reiterated prior arguments to the effect that Bybel believes that the position
of Chief Deputy Coroner should be held by a physician, and that if the hiring of Dr. Gretchen
Bybel is not approved, the County will be deprived of a person who is highly qualified and who
is willing to hold the position for a salary that is much lower than what other physicians would
agree to accept in order to perform this work. As to this argument, you factually noted that the
current Acting Chief Deputy is not a physician; that the current annual salary for the Chief
Deputy Coroner position is $35,000; and that although you do not know what salary would be
set for a Chief Deputy Coroner who would be a physician, it would be lower than the Coroner's
annual salary of $65,000.
Fourth, you reiterated prior arguments that the recent Commonwealth Court holding in
Kraines is applicable to this case. You stated that the factual distinctions between the Kraines
case and the instant matter are not great. You further stated that the Commonwealth Court in
Kraines appeared to be saying that the amounts paid in that case to Dr. Hoffman (Controller
Kraines' spouse) were de minimis in relation to the County's financial situation, and that such
is similar to the situation in the instant matter.
Fifth, you argued that the case of Gallen v. State Ethics Commission, No. 1497 C.D.
2001 (Pa. Cmwlth. April 8, 2002), which affirmed, inter alia, this Commission's view that the
"authority of office" is not limited to the voting of a public official, is distinguishable from the
instant matter. You argued that while Gallen involved "behind the scenes" maneuverings, and
actions taken to circumvent the Ethics Act, in the instant matter, everything would be done
entirely "above board."
Finally, you acknowledged that if Dr. Gretchen Bybel would be hired as County Chief
Deputy Coroner, her father, Bybel, would be her supervisor. However, you argued that such
supervisory status is not before this Commission in this appeal.
Our review of this matter is de novo.
III. 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, this 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, this Commission may not issue an opinion /advice but any
person may then submit a signed and sworn complaint which will be investigated by this
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
Bybel - Yatron, 02 -008
September 25, 2002
Page 5
past conduct may not be addressed in the context of an advisory opinion. However, to the
extent you have inquired as to future conduct, your inquiry may, and shall be addressed.
We initially determine, as did Advice of Counsel, 02 -577, that in his capacity as the
Coroner of Berks County, Bybel is a public official subject to the provisions of the Ethics Act.
See, Barron, Order 990; Rohanna, Opinion 01 -003; Perper, Opinion 94 -008.
Sections 1103(a) and 1103(j) of the Ethics Act provide:
§ 1103. Restricted activities
(a) Conflict of interest. - -No public official or public
employee shall engage in conduct that constitutes a conflict of
interest.
(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 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(a), (j).
The following terms pertaining to conflict of interest are defined in the Ethics Act as
follows:
§ 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
Bybel - Yatron, 02 -008
September 25, 2002
Page 6
sister.
65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(f).
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
65 Pa.C.S. § 1102.
Pursuant to Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, a public 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. In each instance of a conflict of
interest, the public official /public employee must abstain fully and satisfy the disclosure
requirements of Section 1103(j).
Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act pertaining to contracting provides as follows:
§ 1103. Restricted activities
(f) Contract. - -No public official or public employee or his
spouse or child or any business in which the person or his
spouse or child is associated shall enter into any contract valued
at $500 or more with the governmental body with which the public
official or public employee is associated or any subcontract
valued at $500 or more with any person who has been awarded a
contract with the governmental body with which the public official
or public employee is associated, 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. In such a case, the public
official or public employee shall not have any supervisory or
overall responsibility for the implementation or administration of
the contract. Any contract or subcontract made in violation of
this subsection shall be voidable by a court of competent
jurisdiction if the suit is commenced within 90 days of the making
of the contract or subcontract.
The term "contract" is defined in the Ethics Act as follows:
§ 1102. Definitions
"Contract." An agreement or arrangement for the
acquisition, use or disposal by the Commonwealth or a political
subdivision of consulting or other services or of supplies,
materials, equipment, land or other personal or real property.
The term shall not mean an agreement or arrangement between
the State or political subdivision as one party and a public official
Bybel - Yatron, 02 -008
September 25, 2002
Page 7
or public employee as the other party, concerning his expense,
reimbursement, salary, wage, retirement or other benefit, tenure
or other matters in consideration of his current public
employment with the Commonwealth or a political subdivision.
65 Pa.C.S. § 1102.
Section 1103(f) does not operate to make contracting with the governmental body
permissible where it is otherwise prohibited. Rather, where a public official /public employee, his
spouse or child, or a business with which he, his spouse or child is associated, is otherwise
appropriately contracting with the governmental body, or subcontracting with any person who
has been awarded a contract with the governmental body, in an amount of $500.00 or more,
Section 1103(f) requires that an "open and public process" as delineated in the Act be
observed as to the contract with the governmental body. Additionally, Section 1103(f) of the
Ethics Act requires that the public official /employee may not have any supervisory or overall
responsibility as to the implementation or administration of the contract with the governmental
body.
We have reviewed the recitation in Advice 02 -577 of the above provisions of the Ethics
Act, which recitation we find to be thorough and accurate.
We also take administrative notice that Sections 1231, 1620, 1623, and 1625 of the
County Code provide in pertinent part as follows:
§ 1231. Deputies
The coroner may appoint one or more deputies to act in
his place and stead, as he may deem proper and necessary.
Such deputy or deputies shall have the same powers as the
coroner.
§ 1620. Salaries and compensation
The salaries and compensation of county officers shall be
as now or hereafter fixed by law. The salaries and compensation
of all appointed officers and employes who are paid from the
county treasury shall be fixed by the salary board created by this
act for such purposes.. .
§ 1623. Number and compensation of officers, deputies,
assistants, clerks and employes
The board, subject to limitations imposed by law, shall fix
the compensation of all appointed county officers, and the
number and compensation of all deputies, assistants, clerks and
other persons whose compensation is paid out of the county
treasury .. .
§ 1625. Procedure and action of board
(a) Except as herein otherwise provided, whenever the
board shall consider the number or salaries of the deputies or
other employes of any county officer or agency, such officer or
the executive head of such agency shall sit as a member of the
board, as long as any matter affecting his office or agency is
under consideration and no longer.
Bybel - Yatron, 02 -008
September 25, 2002
Page 8
16 P.S. §§ 1231, 1620, 1623, 1625(a).
In applying Sections 1103(a) and 1103(j) of the Ethics Act to the instant matter, it is
clear to this Commission that any use of the authority of Bybel's public office as Coroner to
advance the hiring of his own daughter as Chief Deputy Coroner would be a classic example
of "nepotism" prohibited by the Ethics Act.
There is no question that per the County Code, the authority to appoint the Chief
Deputy Coroner and to sit as a member of the County Salary Board when that Board sets the
salary for the position lies with Bybel as Coroner. Therefore, through a straightforward
application of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, Advice 02 -577 correctly determined that
Section 1103(a) would prohibit Bybel from hiring his daughter as Chief Deputy Coroner and /or
participating as a member of the County Salary Board in setting her salary, because such
actions would constitute uses of the authority of Bybel's public office for the private pecuniary
benefit of his daughter, a member of his immediate family. See, e.q., Confidential Opinion, 02-
004; Rinehimer, Order 1216; Johnston, Order 1200; Bartholomew, Order 1195; Anthony,
Order 1179; Larkin, Order 1070; Santore, Order 1152; Schirq, Order 1146; Holvey, No. 815
C.D. 1997 (Pa. Cmwlth. February 3, 1998); Kaputa, Order 1025; Bambino, Order 1000;
Strate, Order 925. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine a more fundamental application of the
conflict of interest provision.
Furthermore, even if Bybel would abstain from the official action taken by the Salary
Board as to his daughter, such abstention would not, as you contend, remove his conflict
under the Ethics Act. Indeed, Bybel's actions of selecting his daughter for hiring, presenting
her to the Salary Board, and /or asking /recommending that she be hired would all constitute
uses of the authority of Bybel's public office as Coroner to advance the hiring of his daughter.
Such uses of the authority of Bybel's office would support a violation of Section 1103(a) of the
Ethics Act as to his daughter's hiring even if he would abstain from action taken by the Salary
Board. See, Gallen, supra.
In point of fact, the Ethics Act is —in part —an anti - nepotism statute, and this
Commission is duty -bound to apply the anti - nepotism provisions of the Ethics Act as
promulgated by the General Assembly. We may not, as you suggest, vary the outcome of a
particular decision based upon the perceived merits of a particular hiring. The law must be
applied equally, without favoritism for hirings that some may consider to be especially
desirable. While Bybel's desire to secure the most qualified Chief Deputy Coroner for the
County is commendable, and while we recognize that Bybel may not be able to secure any
physician other than his daughter to fill that position, the Ethics Act simply does not provide for
merit -based exceptions to the applicability of the restrictions of Section 1103(a). This
Commission does not have the authority to grant that which is not authorized by law. See,
Richardson, Opinion No. 93 -006; Ziegler, Opinion No. 98 -001.
As for the proffered applicability of the Kraines case, we disagree that the
Commonwealth Court's decision in that case must or should be applied in the instant matter.
In Kraines, the Commonwealth Court held that Berks County Controller Judith Kraines did not
violate Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when she approved, through the affixing of her
stamped signature on County checks issued to her husband, payments for pathologist fees to
which the Court concluded the husband was entitled. The instant matter is factually
distinguishable from Kraines because the Kraines case did not involve the hiring of an
immediate family member. To the contrary, Kraines' husband provided services to Berks
County contractually, and he had been doing so for many years before his spouse took office.
Additionally, to the extent the Commonwealth Court in Kraines focused upon the
financial impact of Kraines' actions upon Berks County rather than upon Kraines' spouse, we
Bybel - Yatron, 02 -008
September 25, 2002
Page 9
are of the view that the Kraines decision is legally erroneous and should be reversed. This
Commission is, in fact, seeking review of the Commonwealth Court's decision by the Supreme
Court of Pennsylvania.
Through a straightforward application of the elements of Section 1103(a), it is clear that
any use of the authority of Bybel's public position as Coroner to advance the hiring of his
daughter as the County's Chief Deputy Coroner would transgress Section 1103(a) of the
Ethics Act. As a matter of law, it would be irrelevant that Bybel himself would not derive any
private pecuniary benefit from the hiring of his emancipated daughter. Section 1103(a) of the
Ethics Act and the related definition of conflict" or "conflict of interest" at Section 1102 make
no distinctions as to a child's age or emancipation, and a private pecuniary benefit to an
emancipated child is sufficient to complete the elements of a conflict of interest.
Turning our attention to Section 1103(f), the facts which you have submitted do not
enable a conclusive determination as to whether Section 1103(f) would apply in this case.
First, you have stated that you do not know what salary would be set for Dr. Gretchen Bybel
(although one would expect that for this full time position for which the current salary is
$35,000, whatever salary would be set would be in excess of $500). Further, however, you
have not stated whether the employment contract with Dr. Gretchen Bybel would be with the
Coroner's Office or the County Commissioners. Therefore, on this particular point, we cannot
determine with certainty whether the contract would be with Bybel's governmental body, the
Coroner's Office. See, Kraines, Order 1224 at 26. In this regard, this Opinion must
necessarily be limited to stating that assuming that Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act would
apply, the hiring of the Coroners daughter as Chief Deputy Coroner would necessarily result
in the transgression of Section 1103 (ff) of the Ethics Act where the Coroner would inherently
have supervisory or overall responsibility as to the individual in such position.
The above conclusions as well as the remaining conclusions of Advice 02 -577 are all
supported by this Commission's recent decision in Confidential Opinion, 02 -004. In that
Opinion, we determined that a public official would be prohibited from approving the
appointment of a member of his immediate family to a position with the political subdivision
which he served, even upon the recommendation of another public official of the political
subdivision. We further concluded that where there is no pre- existing conflict mechanism in
place specifying how and by whom such a public official's authority is to be exercised as to the
appointment of his immediate family member, the public official's delegation of such authority
to a subordinate is itself a use of authority of office in contravention of Section 1103(a) of the
Ethics Act. Finally, we held that when the proposed contracting would be valued at $500 or
more, such that Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act would be applicable, the appointment of the
public official's immediate family member to a position with the political subdivision would also
result in the transgression of Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act where the public official would
inherently have supervisory or overall responsibility as to the individual in such position.
Based upon our above analysis, we deny the appeal and affirm Yatron, Advice of
Counsel 02 -577.
The propriety of the proposed conduct has only been addressed under the Ethics Act.
Bybel - Yatron, 02 -008
September 25, 2002
Page 10
IV. CONCLUSION:
A county coroner is a public official subject to the provisions of the Public Official and
Employee Ethics Act ( "Ethics Act "), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq. The coroner would be
prohibited under Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act from using the authority of his public office
as to the hiring of his daughter as chief deputy coroner and /or participating as a member of the
county salary board in setting her salary. If there is no pre - existing conflict mechanism in
place specifying how and by whom the coroner's authority is to be exercised as to the hiring of
his daughter, the coroner's delegation of such authority to a subordinate would itself constitute
a use of authority of office in contravention of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act. Assuming
that Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act would apply, the hiring of the coroner's daughter as chief
deputy coroner would necessarily result in the transgression of Section 1103(f) of the Ethics
Act where the coroner would inherently have supervisory or overall responsibility as to the
individual in such position. The appeal is denied. Yatron, Advice of Counsel 02 -577 is
affirmed.
The propriety of the proposed conduct has only been addressed under the Ethics Act.
Pursuant to Section 1107(10), the person who acts in good faith on this Opinion issued
to him shall not be subject to criminal or civil penalties for so acting provided the material facts
are as stated in the request.
This letter is a public record and will be made available as such.
Finally, a party may request the Commission to reconsider its Opinion. The
reconsideration request must be received at this Commission within thirty days of the mailing
date of this Opinion. The party requesting reconsideration must include a detailed explanation
of the reasons as to why reconsideration should be granted in conformity with 51 Pa. Code §
21.29(b).
By the Commission,
Louis W. Fryman
Chair