HomeMy WebLinkAbout80-012 CohenTO:
RE:
FACTS:
DISCUSSION:
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120
January 17, 1980
OPINION NUMBER 80 -012
Pauline Cohen, Esquire
City Solicitors Office
City Hall
Philadelphia, PA 19109
Employment of Assistant City Solicitor in Health Matters
whose spouse is employed as an expert witness - appraisor
in the Real Property Division of the Solicitors office
On January 14, Pauline Cohen, Esquire, Assistant
Solicitor Nominee for the City of Philadelphia appeared
before the Commission.
She advised that her husband is an appraisor who is
currently under contract with a Solicitor's Office in the
Real Property Division. The City Solicitor has offered
Pauline Cohen, Esquire a position as Assistant City
Solicitor dealing exclusively in health matters.
She asks this Commission whether she can take the
appointment, and if so must the Solicitor's Office take any
measures with respect to the future employment of her husband
by the Real Property Division of the Solicitor's Office.
The issue is what is the governmental body to which
Pauline Cohen is associated for purposes of section 3(c) of
the State Ethics Act.
Section 3(c) of the State Ethic Act states that no
public official or public employee or member of his immediate
family...shall enter into any contract valued at $500 or more
with the governmental body [with which the spouse - public
employee is associated] unless the contract has been awarded
through an open and pulic process, including prior public
notice and subsequent public disclosure of all proposals
considered in contracts awarded.
For purposes of Section 3(c) the Commission holds that
the governmental body to which Pauline Cohen is associated is
the Health Division of the Solicitor's Office. According to
the facts, she has no opportunity to deal in any way with the
Real Property Division of the Solicitor's Office. Moreover, the
hiring of an expert witness does not lend itself to "an open
an public process" as defined in Section 3(c). It is
Pauline Cohen
January 17, 1980
Page 2
CONCLUSION:
PJS /rdp -2
necessary for the Solicitor to get the best witness available
at the established rate, rather than the cheapest person who
will do the job.
It is not the purpose of the State Ethics Act to prohibit
individuals from holding positions, but rather to furnish
guidelines by which they can hold certain employment, and at
the same time safeguard the public trust.
A person may accept employment in the Philadelphia City
Solicitors's Office in a division which has no contact with
the division which contracts for expert witness services of
her spouse. No open and public process is required because
of the division between the Health Services Division and the
Real Property Division of the Solicitor's Office, and the
unique services of an expert witness.
Pursuant to Section 7(9)(i), this opinion is a complete
defense in any enforcement proceeding intiated by the
Commission, and evidence of good faith conduct in any other
civil or criminal proceeding, providing the requestor has
disclosed truthfully all 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.
( V
\ ' Cr,LAY ),1,4
PAUL J./ MITH
Chairman