HomeMy WebLinkAbout80-024 ShirkKenelm L. Shirk, III, Esquire
Shirk, Reist & Posey
P.O. Box 1552
Lancaster, PA 17603
Dear Mr. Shirk:
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120
May 21, 1980
OPINION OF THE COMMISSION
#80 -024
In your letter of March 28, 1980, you requested an
advisory opinion from the State Ethics Commission concerning
the possible appointment of a partner of your firm to the
Lancaster County Board Assistance. You explained that the
member of the firm that was being considered for the
appointment was presently serving on the Board of Directors
of the local non - profit hospital. You further explained
that one member of your law firm currently represents the
county government and that all members of the law firm are
involved in the representation of clients in support matters
some of which include public assistance benefits. You
specifically requested an opinion from the Commission as to
whether any of the foregoing activities, individually or in
combination, create a conflict of interest prohibited by Act 170.
Members of county boards of assistance are appointed by the
Governor subject to confirmation by the Senate and serve without
compensation other than reimbursement expenses. Act of June 13,
1967, P.L. , No. 21, art. 4, §415, 62 P.S. §415. Act 170
excludes from the definition of "public official" those appointed
officials who recieve no compensation other than reimbursement
for actual expenses. While the partner in your law firm would
not be a "public official as that term is used in Act 170, it is
the Commisson's opinion that members of county boards of assistance
hold public office.
Kenelm L. Shirk, III, Esquire
May 21, 1980
Page 2
Section 1 of the Act declares that the people have a right
to be assured that holders of public office "present neither a
conflict nor the appearance of a conflict with the public trust."
It is the Commission's opinion that if a partner of your firm is
appointed to the Lancaster County Board of Assistance, in order
to avoid a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict,
such partner must not participate in any Board matter involving
a client of your law firm.
PJS /rdp
Pursuant to Section 7(9)(i), this opinion 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.
C
PAUL J,SMITH
Chairm_n