HomeMy WebLinkAbout734-R WilliamsRe: 87 -121 -C
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120
RECONSIDERATION ORDER OF THE COMMISSION
Order No. 734-8
Before: Helena G. Hughes, Chair
Robert W. Brown, Vice Chair
W. Thomas Andrews
G. Sieber Pancoast
Dennis C. Harrington
James M. Howley
Date Decided: February 22, 1990
Date Mailed: March 6, 1990
Harvey A. Williams
c/o Harvey A. Yanks
The Carlton Business Center, Suite 400
1819 John F. Kennedy Boulevard
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Dear Mr. Williams:
Your request for Reconsideration was received on January 16,
1990, with respect to the above- captioned Order issued on January 3,
1990; pursuant to 51 Pa. Code 2.38. The discretion of the State Ethics
Commission to grant reconsideration is properly invoked when:
(b) Any party may ask the Commission to reconsider an order
within 15 days of service of the order. The person
requesting reconsideration should present a detailed
explanation setting forth the reasons why the order should
be reconsidered. Reconsideration may be granted at the
discretion of the Commission only where any of the following
occur:
(1) a material error of law has been made;
(2) a material error of facts has been.:made;
(3) new facts or evidence are provided w ih would
lead to reversal or modification of tire,;r'd:. c .
where these could not be or were not -disco ered
previously by the exercise' of dues diligence. S1 .
Pa. Code S2.38(b). =s,..
Mr. Harvey A . Williams
Page 2
The Commission, having reviewed your request, must DENY your
request because none of these circumstances is present.
In your request for reconsideration you proffer nine reasons for
granting your request. The points you raise will be considered
seriatim.
First, you assert that paragraph 18 of the Findings is inaccurate
because Mr. Risaliti was not a supervisor in the Prevailing Wage
Division at the time when you were employed. You note that Mr.
Trobish who was the supervisor at the time of your employment did not
testify as a witness nor did Jack Cohen who was the director at that
time.
The finding does not state that Mr. Risaliti was a supervisor
when you were employed but merely that he is a supervisor. In
addition, Mr. Risaliti did testify that he had knowledge of your
duties as a prevailing wage. inspector:
Q Would you have any knowledge of Mr. Williams' duties as
a prevailing wage inspector?
A Yes, I would.
(N /T 35)
Your second challenge relates to the issue of flex time and
working the required amount of hours. You assert that flex time was
not then available and that you fulfilled expectations by visiting at
least two projects a day. The issue in this case is whether you were
working at Hahnemann when you were supposed to be working between the
hours of 8:30 to 5:00 at the Department of Labor and Industry. The
fact that you visited two projects a day does not address the issue of
whether you were working the required daily hours for Labor and
Industry. Based upon our review of the record we found that you were
receiving compensation from the Commonwealth at times when you were in
fact working for Hahnemann University. You have not shown any
material error of law or fact on this point.
Thirdly, you assert that the conclusion that complaints about
your work being late are inaccurate because there was only one
complaint in fifteen. years which was at a time when your mother was
terminally ill.
The testimony of M±.. Risaliti dispels your argument:
Q Was there ever any complaint against Mr. Williams in 14
years that you know of that he didn't produce his work that
you know of?
Mr. Harvey A. Williams
Page 3
A There were complaints from workers to our office saying
that things weren't moving fast enough on certain audits or
things of that nature. (N /T 69)
Your fourth basis concerns your working early or late as well as
working at home and your job performance. Since this cleim does not
address any possible error of law or fact but merely Consists of
commentary on your part, it presents no arguable basis for
reconsideration.
In your fifth contention, you assert that there can be no
violation of Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act because you did not use
public office or confidential information for financial gain. In
particular you argue that you did not use your position at Labor and
Industry to obtain the job. at Hahnemann which was "completely separate
and apart.
The violation of Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act in this case does
not relate to how you obtained employment at Hahnemann but your being
paid by Labor and Industry for a 7.5 hour day when you were working
part of that time at Hahnemann. Such action was a use of office
because you were using your state position to get paid for time that
you were not on the state job. Further you obtained a financial gain
because you were paid for hours you did not work which is clearly
compensation other than provided by law.
Your sixth basis concerns the testimony of Mr. Cletis Emrick.
Although you state that he ( Emrick corroborates your testimony
regarding leaving home at 7 :00 a.m. and returning at 3:00 p.m., such
testimony only relates to the purported work schedule of Mr..Emrick
but not your own.
As to your seventh contention concerning appearing in Harrisburg
at meetings and filling out expense vouchers, such action is at best
only remotely related to the case and does not present any basis for
granting reconsideration.
Your eighth claim that you finished the state job at 1:00.p.m.
and then obtained another job serves as, a basis for denying rather
than granting reconsideration since you were getting paid by Labor and
Industry for time that you = were actually working at Hahnemann.
In your ninth and final contention, you assert that you were a
hardworking conscientious employee who had certain personal family
problems. You believe these circumstances warrant reconsideration.
The above does not constitute a basis on which we may grant
reconsideration. You simply have not established any material error
of law or fact to warrant reconsideration.
t ¥IA.y A. Williams
Pge4
l . light of the foregoing, the State Ethics Commission concludes
t1a t , 3 VP-quest for reconsideration must be DENIED.
Thee Or4er and this decision denying reconsideration are final
and shftll be made available as public documents on the fifth (5th)
business clay following the date of this Order.
•
By t e Commissi
elena G. Hughes
Chair