HomeMy WebLinkAbout495 SnavelyMr. Glenn Snavely
R.D. #2, Box 2.40
Elizabethtown, PA 17022
Re: 86- 02.0 -C
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120
ORDER OF THE COMMISSION
June 2.0, 1986
Order No. 495
Dear Mr. Snavely:
The State Ethics Commission has received a complaint regarding you and a
possihle violation of Act 170 of 1978. The Commission has now completed its
investigation. The individual allegations, conclusions, and findings on which
those conclusions are based are as follows:
I. Allegation: That you, a Code Enforcement Officer for the Borough of
Highspire, violated Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act which prohibits a public
employee or public official's use of office or confidential information gained
through that office to obtain financial gain when you failed to enforce
building code and zoning requirements on projects you built as a private
contractor.
A. Findings:
1. You have served as a part -time Code Enforcement Officer for Highspire
Borough since November, 1978 and, as such, are subject to the State Ethics
Act.
2. The full -time code enforcement officer for the borough is Donald H.
Horner.
3. You own property at 657 -669 Eshelman Street in Highspire.
4. You were granted a variance from sideyard requirements on this property.
The actions leading to the granting of this variance were as follows:
a. On August 8, 1983, you applied for a zoning variance.
Mr. Glenn Snavely
June 20, 1986
Page 2
b. James R. Brokenshire, Jr., the zoning officer for the Highspire
Zoning Hearing Board, issued a public notice at the Highspire Zoning
Hearing Board and set August 24, 1983 at 7:30 p.m. as the date for
a hearing on your variance.
c. On August 25, 1983, George Keiter, Chairman of the zoning hearing
board, notified you and all parties that the zoning hearing board had
unanimously granted the variance you had requested.
d. On April 16, 1984, Use and Occupancy Certificate #478 was issued to
you and your wife. Donald H. Horner signed this certificate as code
enforcement officer and James R. Brokenshire, Jr., signed it as
zoning officer.
5. You were not involved in any of the official actions which resulted in the
approval of the variance on your property.
a. You were not the borough zoning officer.
B. Discussion: As a code enforcement officer for the Bcrough of Highspire
you are a public employee as that term is defined in the State Ethics Act. 65
P.S. §402. As such, your conduct must conform to the requirements of that
Act. See, Simmons, 79 -056.
Generally, the State Ethics Act provides as follows:
Section 3. Restricted activities.
(a) No public official or public employee shall use his
public office or any confidential information received
through his holding public office to obtain financial gain
other than compensation provided by law for himself, a
member of his immediate family, or a business with which
he is associated. 65 P.S. 403(a).
Within the above provision of law, a public official or public employee may
not use their public position in order to obtain any financial gain for
themselves other than the compensation provided for by law. A public employee
may not use confidential information obtained in their public position for
similar purposes. Based upon the above provision of law, it is clear that a
public official may not take any action, in their public capacity, that would
benefit them financially or i n relation to private projects in which they are
involved. In the instant situation, the facts indicate that you took no
action as a public employee in relation to the housing development in which
you were involved. You were not the zoning officer and you were not a member
of the zoning hearing board. You did, as a private citizen, make application
Mr. Glenn Snavely
June 20, 1986
Page 3
to the zoning hearing board in order to obtain a variance from the borough
zoning ordinance. This was done in order to construct the houses as indicated
in the findings of fact. In relation to that application, however, you took
no action and participated in no way as a public official in the zoning
hearing board's review, consideration, and decision in relation to that
matter. You were not, as code enforcement officer, in a position to affect
the outcome of the zoning hearing board decision in any way. We also note
that as code enforcement officer you did not participate, to any extent, in
the review of the proposed buildings that you were constructing. As such, we
do not believe that you violated the State Ethics Act.
C. Conclusion: There was no violation of the State Ethics Act in light of
the fact that you did not participate, to any extent, as the borough's code
enforcement officer in a private housing project in which you were involved.
Our files in this case will remain confidential in accordance with
Section 8(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 P.S. 408(a). However, this Order is final
and will be made available as a public document 15 days after service (defined
as mailing) unless you file documentation with the Commission which justifies
reconsideration and /or challenges pertinent factual findings. See 51 Pa. Code
2.38. During this 15 -day period, no one, including the Respondent unless he
waives his right to challenge this Order, may violate this confidentiality by
releasing, discussing or circulating this Order.
Any person who violates the confidentiality of a Commission proceeding
is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be fined not more than $1,000 or
imprisoned for not more than one year or both, see 65 P.S. 409(e).
By the Commission,
G. Sieber Pancoast
Chairman