HomeMy WebLinkAbout92-544STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
309 FINANCE BUILDING
P.O. BOX 11470
HARRISBURG, PA 1 71 08 -1 470
TELEPHONE (717) 783 -1610
ADVICE OF COUNSEL
February 24, 1992
Michael L. Mixell, Esquire
Brumbach, Mancuso & Fegley, P.C.
50, North Fifth Street
P.O. Box 8321
Reading, PA 19603 -8321
92 -544
Re: Conflict, Public Official/Employee, Township Supervisor, Use
of Authority of Office or Confidential Information, Business
with which Associated, Flea Market, Competition with
Business Discussed at Public and Private Meetings.
Dear Mr. Mixell:
This responds to your letters of November 27, 1991, and
February 7, 1992, in which you requested advice from the State
Ethics Commission.
Issue: Whether the Public Official. and Employee Ethics Law
presents any prohibition or restrictions upon a chairman of a
board of township,. supervisors with regara to opening an indoor
flea market business at .a location approximately six miles from
an existing indoor .flea market, where the existing business has
appeared at public and private township meetings and it has been
suggested that the chairman would be using confidential
information obtained at such meetings to open the competing
indoor flea market.
Facts: As personal legal counsel to Mr. Thomas Pagerly, Chairman
of the Board of Supervisors of South Heidelberg Township in Berks
County, Pennsylvania, you seek the advice of the State. Ethics
Commission with respect to Mr. Pagerly's proposed business
venture.
Since
transient
which you
reference.
retailers,
payment of
October 25, 1990, South Heidelberg Township has had a
retail business ordinance ( "Ordinance "),, a copy of
have submitted and which is incorporated herein by
The Ordinance .requires a license for transient
including flea market vendors, and requires the
a licence fee to the Township.
Fox Theatres (Fox) operates a drive -in movie theater in the
Township and for_some time has also operated an outdoor flea
market at this site during the non- winter months. Durin4 1991, `
Michael L. Mixell, Esquire
February 24, 1992
Page 2
Fox and its attorneys began to discuss with the Township its
concern with respect to the Ordinance and the amount of the
licensing fee, which was set at $20.00 per vendor per year gn
March 14, 1991. Fox felt that the licensing ordinance was
improper and threatened litigation against, the Township. As a
result of the threat of litigation, there were two ..private
meetings held at the offices of Thomas Golden, Esquire, the
Township Solicitor, on May 29, 1991, and June 20, 1991. Mr.
Pagerly has advised you that at those meetings and at the public
meetings that followed, Fox successfully convinced the .Township
to reduce the amount for the licensing permit from $20.00 to
$10.00 per vendor, which reduction was approved on July 11, 1991.
You state that although Mr. Pagerly recalls general
discussions at the private meetings about the type of business
which Fox operated and the request for the reduction in the
license fees, he does not recall any specific proprietary
information being discussed at either of the private meetings.
You do not have precise detailed information regarding.the exact
discussions held between Fox and the Township because you are not
counsel to the Township. You have requested that Mr. Golden as
Solicitor for the Township have the Township Supervisors review
this matter and cooperate fully with this Commission with respect
to the facts surrounding this issue. You. have submitted a.copy
of your letter to Mr.. dated November 27, 1991, which
document is incorporated herein reference. You have ,further
invited this Commission to contact Attor_zey Golden to discuss
this matter with him.
You note that Fox also appeared at public township meetings
on June 13, 1991, and July 11, 1991, at which Fox discussed its
concerns about the ordinance including its belief that the
ordinance would have an adverse effect on tenants because of
their interest in preserving their privacy. You -state that the
minutes of the Township's meetings reflect: the discussions held
between Fox, its attorney, Raymond Schlegel Esquire, and the
Township. You have submitted unsigned copies of the minutes for
June 13, -1991, and July 11, 1991, which documents are
incorporated herein by reference. You state that Mr. Pagerly has
informed you that there was nothing discussed at the private
meetings at the Township Solicitor's office which was not also
discussed by Fox and its attorneys at the public Township
meetings.
You state that in what Mr. Pagerly considers to be an
unrelated matter, Mr. Pagerly and /or Pagerly Enterprises, Inc., a
corporation fully owned by Mr. Pagerly, is contemplating opening
an indoor flea. market in a neighboring municipality. The
original proposed location was to be at a vacant Jamesway Store
Michael L. Mixell, Esquire
February 24, 1992
Page 3
in the immediate vicinity of the outdoor flea market operated by
Fox. While the Jamesway Store location was being considered, Fox
took the position with Mr. Pagerly that he obtained .confidential
information from Fox at the two private meetings with the
Township Solicitor. It is Mr. Pagerly's position that there was
no confidential information discussed at the private meetings
with the Township Solicitor, and that any information discussed
at the Township - Solicitor's office was also discussed at the
'public meetings by Fox. Fox threatened to sue Mr. Pagerly and/or
his - corporation for injunctive relief and for violations of the
Ethcs Law if IMr. Pagerly proceeded with ' the Jamesway project.
Mr. Pagerly delayed proceeding with this business venture until
an advisory could be received from the Ethics Commission.
However, you state that the proposed Jamesway location has been
lost because Mr. Pagerly was unable to execute a lease with the
Jamesway people due to the : "cloud" of the consideration of the
matter by this Commission. At this time, Mr. Pagerly has found
another potential location approximately six miles west of the
original location, in another municipality. Mr. Pagerly would
very much like to sign a lease for the building before he loses
that potential location. However, you have advised him to wait
until an advisory is issued this Commission.
You indicate your belief that an investigation of the facts
would confirm that there was no private` - or confidential
information discussed at the meetings referenced above.
Based upon all of the above, you request an expedited
advisory so that Mr. Pagerly will not lose the opportunity to
operate a flea market at the second proposed business location.
The minutes of the June 13, 1991 and July 11, 1991 meetings
provide, in pertinent - part, as follows:
There was a% discussion of the amended
wording to Ordinance No. 121 proposed by
Raymond Schlegel Esquire, on behalf of his
client Donald Fox. This proposal suggests
that the license and fee be obtained and
by the property owner where the retail
business operates, not by each individual
retail business.
The Supervisors do not agree with this
proposed change and directed Mr. Golden to
inform Mr. Schlegel of their decision.
Minutes, South Heidelberg Township, June 13, 1991 . at
Michael L. '1ixell, Esquire
February 24,1992
Page 4
There was a discussion regarding the
license fee for transient retail businesses
operating within the Township. Raymond
Schlegel, Esquire, representing Donald Fox, -
commented that the enforcement of a license
fee for vendors at the flea market hosted at
the Sinking Spring Drive -In will cause the
demise of the flea market. Mr. Schlegel
asked the Supervisors to consider an
amendment to Ordinance No. 12). that would
allow a property owner to purchase a license
for a block of vendors that operate on a
particular property. The Supervisors will
delay final action on this iss•ie until the
August 8, 1991, meeting.
Minutes, South Heidelberg Township, July 11, 1991 at 2.
Discussion: As Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of South
Heidelberg Township in Berks County, Pennsylvania, Mr. Thomas
Pagerly is a public official as that term is defined under the
Ethics Law, and hence he is subject to the provisions of that
law.
Section 3(a) of the Ethics Law provides:
Section 3. Restricted Activities.
(a) No public official or public
employee shall engage in conduct that
constitutes a conflict of interest.
The following terms are . defined in the Ethics Law as
follows:
Section 2. 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 cf himself, a
member of his immediate family or a business
with which he or a member of his immediate
family is associated. "Conflict" or
"conflict of interest" does not include an
action having a de minimis economic impact or
Michael L. Mixell, Esquire
February 24, 1992
Page 5
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 . m_ ember 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 pubai office or
position of public employment.
"Business with which he is associated."
Any business in which the person or a member
of the person's immediate family is a
director, , officer, owner, employee or has a
financial interest.
"Financial interest." Any financial
interest in a legal, entity engaged in
business for profit which comprises more
than 5% of the equity of the business or more
than 5% of the assets of the economic
interest in indebtedness.
in addition, - Sections 3(b) and 3(c) of the Ethics Law
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 judgement 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 respon'se to the question
presented.
Section 3(j) of the Ethics Law provio.s as follows:
Section. 3. Restricted activities.
Michael L. Mixell, Esquire
February 24, 1992
Page 6
(j) 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, publ. =cly 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.
If a conflict exists, Section 3(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.
Before applying the above provisions of the Ethics Law to
the facts that you have submitted, it is necessary to address the
nature of an advisory from this Commission. The advice /opinion
process requires that the Commission issue the advice /opinion
assuming the, submitted facts to be true. The burden is upon the
inquirer to truthfully disclose all of the material facts. 65
P.S. §407(11). Indeed, any protection to be afforded based upon
acting in reliance upon an Advice is conditioned upon the
submission of a good faith request for advice which. discloses
Michael L. Mixell, Esquire
February 24, 1992
Page 7
truthfully all of the material facts. Id. Thus, to the extent
your zequett for advice is Tacking in any factual detail,
particularly with 'regard to the dLScussfons which took place at
the private meetings with Fox in 'which Mi. Pagerly •participated,
this Commission nbt fill in the missing facts for you, and
for that reason may not contact Mr. Golden.
Mr. ftger* the individual on chose behalf you have
submitted the request- for advice, was physically present at
these meetings and may be presumed to know what took place and
any confidential information to which he may have been privy.
Mr. Pagerly has affirmatively represented to this Commission that
he does not recall any specific proprietary information being
discussed at either of the private meetings. Mr. Pagerly has
further represented his . position that there was no confidential
information discussed at the private meetings with the ToWnshipp
Solicitor, and that any information discussed at the To*nehLp
Solicitor's office was also discussed at the public meetings VST
Fox. These affirmative representations were made in your letter
of November 27, 1991, at page 2.
While an affirmative representation as to one's recollection
and as . to the position which one - is tak` are a step removed
from a clear statement of what actually occurred, these are the
facts which you have submitted and these are the facts upon which
this Advice shall be based.
Conditions upon which this Advice is based include,
therefore, the condition that in opening the proposed indoor flea
market business, Mr. Pagerly would not be using any confidential
information received by holding public office 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 above provisions of the Ethics Law will now be
discussed in light of the facts which you have submitted.
Section 3(a) of the Ethics Law prohibits a public official/
public employee from using the authority of public office /public
employment or confidential information received by holding such a
public position for the private pecuniary benefit of the public
official /public employee himself, a member of his immediate
family, or a business with which he or a member of his immediate
family is associated. Section 3(a) applies only to restrict the
conduct of the public official /public employee in his public
capacity. Section 3(a) does not prohibit public officials /public
employees from outside business activities or employment:
However, the public official /public employee may not use the
Michael L. Mixell, Esquire
F'eb'ruary 24, 1992
Page 8
authority of office for the advancement of his o-rn private
pecuniary benefit or that of. a business with which he is
associated, Pancoe, Opinion 89 -011, and /or to the detriment of
competitors, Pepper, Opinion 87 -008.. Similarly, Section 3(a)
expressly prohibits the use of confidential information received
by holding a public position for such a private pecuniary
benefit.
Thus, in response to your specific inquiry and subject to
the restrictions and qualifications noted above, the Law
would not prohibit Mr. Pagerly from opening an indoor flea
market in a neighboring municipality and approximately six miles
from the Fox flea market location, conditioned upon the express
assumption that Mr. Pagerly would not be using confidential
information received by holding public office in doing so.
The propriety of the proposed ccnduct has only been
addressed under the Ethics Law; the applicability of any other
statute, code, ordinance, regulation or other code of conduct
other than the Ethics Law has not been considered in that they do
not involve an interpretation of the Ethics Law. Specifically
not addressed herein is the applicability of the Second ClaS$
Township Code.
Conclusion: As Chairman of the Board of Supervisors for South
Heidelberg Township in. Berks County, Pennsylvania, Mr. Thomas
Pagerly is a public official subject to the provisions of the
Ethics Law. Section 3(a) of the Ethics Law would not preclude
Mr. Pagerly from outside employment /business activity subject to
the restrictions and qualifications as noted above. This Advice
is expressly conditioned upon your affirmative representations
and the assumption that Mr. Pagerly would not use any
confidential information 'received by holding public office 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. Lastly, the propriety of the
proposed conduct has only been addressed under the Ethics Law.
Pursuant to .Section 7(11), this 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, providing 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.
Michael L. Mixell, Esquire
February 24, 1992
Page 9
Finally, if you disagree with this Advioe or if you have any
reason to challenge same, you may re ues that a fi411
Commission review this Advice. A personal appearance before the
Commission will be scheduled and a formal Opinion from the
Commission will be issued. Any such appeal must be in writing
and must be received at the Commission within 15 days of the date
of this Advice pursuant to 51 Pa. Code §2.12.
cerely, `n
Vincent J. Dopko
Chief Counsel
-
7