Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout92-568Mr. William M. Scott 1300 Well Drive Camp Hill, PA 17011 Dear Mr. Scott: STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 309 FINANCE BUILDING P.O. BOX 11470 HARRISBURG, PA 1 71 08 -1 470 TELEPHONE (717) 783 -1610 ADVICE OF COUNSEL April 22, 1992 92 -568 Res Former Public Employee; Section 3(g); Highway Bridge Engineer; PennDOT. This responds to your letters of December 30, 1991, and March 5, 1992, in which you requested advice from the State Ethics Commission. Issue: Whether the Public Official and Employee Ethics Law presents any restrictions upon employment of a Highway Bridge Engineer following termination of service with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation. Facts: As a former Highway Bridge Engineer with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation (PennDOT), you request an advisory from the State Ethics Commission. You initially reference a prior advisory issued to you on May 7, 1986, specifically-Scott, Advice 86 -552. You requested the said advisory in anticipation of leaving state employment, but you did not actually leave state employment at that time. Between May, 1986 and November, 1991, you continued to serve PennDOT as a District 8- 0 Bridge Engineer, with the description of your position, your duties, responsibilities and jurisdiction remaining exactly as described in Advice 86 -552. On December 16, 1991, you began employment with Benatec Associates, a private consulting engineering firm doing business within and for the Commonwealth and specifically doing business with PennDOT. You inquire as to any changes relevant to your case given that five years have passed since the original advisory was issued. You state that you are continuing to follow the original Advice in your activities with PennDOT District 8-0, Discussion: It is initially noted that your request for an advisory may only be addressed with regard to prospective conduct. A reading of Sections 7(10) and (11) of the Ethics Act makes it Mr. William M. Scott April 22, 1992 Page 2 clear that 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 Law violations by a person who is subject to the Ethics Law. Indeed, there have been significant changes to the Ethics Law since you submitted your initial request for an advisory in 1986. The Ethics Law was re- enacted and amended effective June 26, 1989, and there have been major changes to the relevant provisions of the Ethics Law, so as to preclude reliance upon prior Advice 86 -552. As a Highway Bridge Engineer for PennDOT, you would be considered a "public employee" within the definition of that term as set forth in the Public Official and Employee Ethics Law and the Regulations of this Commission. 65 P.S. 5402; 51 Pa. Code S1.1. This conclusion is based upon the job description as summarized in prior Advice 86 -552, which you have indicated did not change between May, 1986 and the termination of your employment in November, 1991, and which when reviewed on an objective basis, indicates clearly that the power exists to take or recommend official action of a non - ministerial nature with respect to contracting, procurement, planning, inspecting, administering or monitoring grants, leasing, regulating, auditing or other activities where the economic impact is greater than de minimis on the interests of another person. Consequently, upon termination of public service, you became a "former public employee" subject to Section 3(g) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Law. Section 3(g) of the Ethics Act provides that: Section 3. Restricted activities. (g)• No former public official or public employee shall represent a person, with promised or actual compensation, on any matter before the governmental body with which he has been associated for one year after he leaves that body. Initially, to answer your request the governmental' body with which you have been associated while working with PennDOT must be identified. Then, the scope of the prohibitions associated with the concept and term of "representation" must be reviewed. The term "governmental body with Which a public official or Mr. William M. Scott April 22, 1992 Page 3 public employee is or has been associated" is defined under the Ethics Law as follows: Section 2. Definitions. "Governmental body with which a public official or public employee is or has been associated." The governmental body. within State government or a political subdivision by which the public official or employee is or has been employed or to which the public official or employee is or has been appointed or elected and subdivisions and offices within that governmental body. In applying the above definition to the instant matter, we must conclude that the governmental body with which you have been associated upon termination of public service would be PennDOT in its entirety, including but not limited to District 8 -0. The above is based upon the language of the Ethics Law, legislative intent (Legislative Journal of House, 1989 Session, No. 15..at 290, 291) and the prior precedent of this Commission. Thus, in Sirolli Opinion 90 -006, the Commission found that a former Division Director of the Department of Public Welfare.(DPW) was not merely restricted to, the particular Division as was contended but was in fact restricted to all of DPW regarding: the one year representation restriction. Similarly in Sharp, Opinion 90- 009 -R, it was determined that a former legislative assistant to a state senator was not restricted to that particular senator but to the entire Senate as his former governmental body. Therefore, within the first year after termination of service with PennDOT, Section 3(g) of the Ethics Law would apply and restrict representation of persons or new employers vis -a -vis PennDOT. It is noted that Act 9 of 1989 significantly broadened the definition of the term "governmental body with which a public official or public employee is or has been associated." It was the specific intent of the General Assembly to define the above term so that it was not merely limited to the area where a public official /employee had influence or control but extended to the entire governmental body with which the public official /employee was associated. The foregoing intent is reflected in the legislative debate relative to the amendatory language for the above term: We sought to make particularly clear that when we are prohibiting for 1 year that revolving -door kind of conduct, we are dealing Mr William M. Scott April 22, 1992 Page 4 not only with a particular subdivision of an agency or a local government but the entire unit..." Legislative Journa,1 of House 1989 Session, No. 15 at 290, 291. Therefore, since the Ethics Law must be construed to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the General Assembly under 1: Pa. C.S.A. 51901, it is clear that the - .governmental body with which you have been sssoeieted is peinDOT in its entirety, including but not limited to PennDOT District 8-0. Turning now to the scope of the restrictions under Section 3(g), the Ethics Law does not affect one's ability to appear before agencies or entities other than with respect to the former governmental body. Likewise, there is no general limitation on the type of employment in which a person may engage, following departure from their governmental body. It is noted, however, that the conflicts of interest 'law is primarily concerned .. with financial conflicts and violations of the public trust. The intent of the law generally is that during the term of a person's public employment he must act consistently with the public trust and upon departure from the public sector, that individual should not. be allowed to utilize his association with the public sector, officials or employees to secure for himself or a new employer, treatment or benefits that may be obtainable only because of his associat with his former governmental body. In respect to the one year restriction against such "representation," the Ethics Law; defines "Represent" as follows: Sectipn Z. Dej4.nitions . '1 ' Represent. To act on behalf of any other person in any activity which includes, but is not limited to, the following: personal appearances, negotiations, lobbying and submitting bid or contract proposals which are signed by or contain the name of a former public official or public employee. In addition, the term "Person" is defined as follows under the Ethics Law: Sectipp, 2 . DDf initians . "person." A business, governmental body, individual corporation, union, association, firm, partnarship, committee, club or other organi.zration or group of persons. Mr. William M. Scott April 22, 1992 Page 5 The Commission, in Popovick, Opinion 89 -005,, has also interpreted the term wrepresentation" as used in Section 3(g) of the Ethics Law to prohibit: 1. Personal appearances before the former governmental body or bodies, including, but not limited to, negotiations or renegotiations in general or as to contracts; 2. Attempts to influence; 3. Submission of bid or contract proposals which are signed or contain the name of the former public official /employee; 4. Participating in any matters before the former governmental body as to acting on behalf of a person; 5. Lobbying, that is representing the interests of any person or employer before the former governmental body in relation to legislation, regulations, etc. The Commission has also held ,that listing one's name as the person who will provide technical assistance on such proposal, document, or bid, if submitted to or reviewed by the former governmental body constitutes an attempt to influence the former governmental body. In Shav, Opinion 91 -,012, the- Commission held that Section 3(g) would prohibit the inclusion of the name of a former public official /public employee on invoices submitted by his new employer to the former governmental body, even though the invoices pertained to a contract which existed prior to termination of public service. Therefore, within the first year after termination of service, you should not engage in the type of activity outlined above. You may assist in the preparation of any documents presented to PennDOT. However, you may not be identified in documents submitted to PennDOT. You may also counsel any person regarding that person's appearance before PennDOT. Once again, however, the activity in this respect should not be revealed to PennDOT. Of course, any ban under the Ethics Law would not prohibit or preclude the making of general informational inquiries of PennDOT to secure information which is available to the general public. This must not be done in an effort to indirectly influence the former governmental body or to otherwise make known to that body the representation of, or work for the new employer. 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 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 Mr..William M. Scott 'April 22, 1992 Page 6 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. Lastly, the propriety of the proposed conduct 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 Act has not been considered in that they do not involve an interpretation of the Ethics Law. Conclusion: As a Highway Bridge Engineer for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation ( PennDOT), you would be considered a "public employee" as defined in the Ethics Law. Upon termination of service with PennDOT, you became a "former public employee" subject to Section 3(g) of the Ethics Law. The former governmental body is PennDOT in its entirety, including but not limited to District 8 -0. The restrictions as to representation outlined above must be followed. The propriety of the proposed conduct has only been addressed under the Ethics Law. Further, should service . be terminated, as outlined above, the Ethics Law also requires that a Statement of Financial Interests be filed for the year following termination of service. 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. Finally, if you disagree with this Advice or if you have any reason to challenge same, you may request that the full 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 Pa. Code 52.12. Sincerely, Vincent J. Dopko �' ' �' Chief Counsel