HomeMy WebLinkAbout80-034 HemsleyMr. William T. Hemsley
President
Nassaux - Hemsley, Inc.
NHI Building
56 North Second Street
Chambersburg, PA 17201
Dear Mr. Hemsley:
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120
August 20, 1980
OPINION OF THE COMMISSION
80 -034
In your letter of May 8, 1980, you requested an Opinion
from the State Ethics Commission concerning whether consistent
with Act 170 employees of your engineering firm..could perform
sewage enforcement services for a township concerning the
suitability of on -site disposal of a subdivision and whether
your firm could subsequently accept employment from the de-
veloper to perform design services for. the subdivision. You
explained that your firm is not presently employed as Township
Engineer for the Township in question. You further requested
an Opinion from the Commission relative to whether an employee
of an engineering firm that provides sewage enforcement
services at a subdivision could purchase a lot in the subdivision.
Act 170 applies to "public officials" and "public
employees" of the Commonwealth and political subdivisions
thereof. The Commission is charged with liberally construing
the Act to assure that public officials and employees "present
neither a conflict nor the appearance of a conflict with the
public trust."
It is the Commission's opinion that where an engineering
firm provides sewage enforcement services to a township on
an infrequent and limited basis, Act 170 does not prohibit
the firm from subsequently accepting employment from a
developer within the township. If the engineering firm has
provided professional services to a developer relative to
sewage disposal, Act 170 would prohibit the engineering firm
from performing enforcement services for a township with
respect to that development. If an engineering firm provides
sewage enforcement services to a township on a regular and
continuing basis, a prohibited conflict of interest would
arise if the engineering firm would (1) accept employment
from a developer which would require the firm to inspect and
approve its own work, or (2) inspect or advise the
James D. Flower, Esquire
August 20, 1980
Page 3
Pennsylvania, Inc. #80 -016. There the entity involved was
simply a collection agency under contract with various
political subdivisions. The Bureau in #80 -016 had no
discretionary duties or authority and was not created
pursuant to any statutory power. It was merely a private
collection organization.
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 of the
advice given.
This letter is a public record and will be made
available as such.
PJS /jc
cc: Martha Bryer
/ re,G,"1 .
PAUL J . KITH
Chairmari