HomeMy WebLinkAbout884-R BruntonIn re: William Brunton
S .
made.
made.
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120
File Docket: 92- 038 -C2
Date Decided: June 28, 1993
Date Mailed: June 30, 1993
Before: James M. Howley, Chair
Daneen E. Reese, Vice Chair
Dennis C. Harrington
Roy W. Wilt
Austin M. Lee
Allan M. Kluger
Joseph W. Marshall, III
The State Ethics Commission received a request for
reconsideration on June 23, 1993, with respect to Order 884 issued
on May 11, 1993. Pursuant to Section 21.29 of the Regulations of
the Commission, the discretion of the State Ethics' Commission to
grant reconsideration is properly invoked as follows:
521.29. Finality: reconsideration.
(b) Any party may ask the Commission to
reconsider an order or opinion within 15 days
of service of the order or opinion. The
requestor shall present a detailed' explanation
setting forth the reason why the order or
Opinion should be reconsidered.
(e) Reconsideration may be granted at
the discretion of the Commission if:
(1) ,A material error of law has been
(2) A material error of fact has been
(3) New facts or evidence are provided
which would lead to reversal or modification
of the order or opinion and if these could not
be or were not discovered by the exercise of
due diligence.
51 Pa. Code S21.29(b), (e).
This, adjudication of the Commission is> hereby issued which
s the Discussion and Reconsiderations Order.
This Reconsideration Order is final and s'ha11 be made
available as public documents on the fifth (5th) business day
following the date of issuance of this Order.
BrUntonj 9.038d2
Page' 2
ADJUDICATION
William Brunton, hereinafttr giatdhf has requested
reconsideration of Brunton, Order No. 684 ligUed on Ray 11, 1993.
In the foregoing Order, we deteiffiined that Biufiton as an
Independence Township Supervisor in Beaver County;y1Olated Section
3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 by utilizing a Township employee to perform
work at i4runton's property on Township time and at ToWnthip expente
and that Brunton did not violate Section 3(a) regarding the alleged
utilitation of Township paid block, gravel and mortar foi pertonal
purposei:
Ih requesting reeonsideration, Brunton thraUgh . his new
attorney argues that due to a serious communication break&Am with
his prior attorney, he figreed to a resolution of ehii06 when the
Charget ake untrue and there is Substantial doeumentation and
witnett eVidence to refute the charges.
In this case, we do not need to consider the criteria under
which our discretion May be exercised for reconsideratict for to
reatonsi untimtliness and consent decree.
,
As to the matter of timeliness, it is clear that the issUed
Ordei was decided on May 6; 1993, and Mailed On May 11; 1993. The
fifteen (16) day period during which a request for recOnsideration
mus€ be Made is determined from the later of these two dates Thus,
anY request for reconsideration mutt have been forwarded and
receiVed by the Commission Within fifteen days Of MaY ll; 1993. it
is die&I; that in Computing any period Of time regarding
for appeal or reconsideration by an administrative a§thdy, the day
of issuance (defined as mailing) is the date froM w1iich th6 time
period 10 determined. Additionally, the date when auCh & reguest
or akDettl is Contidered filed is the date of receipt at the office
of the agency and not the date of deposit in the Mail. 51 Pa Code
S�,:Gett-v. PennsiIlVania Game ComMiiilon, 83 Pa. 6offiM0.
Ct. 59 i 4I5 A.2d 1369 (1984).
, titre requireMentS are mandatory and absent fraliEl or
negligeht conduct by the administrative agenCy, sueh timing
requireMents May hot b extended. See; Dilenho v;--UnemfilovMent •
Compensation Board of ReView, 59 Pit. Commw. Ct. 496,,429 A:2d.1288
(1981); Mavei-i. UneMoloymeht-CompenSation Board of RevieW; 27 Pa.
Commw. Ct. 44 366 A.2 665 0.976).
Iri the initant situation, as 15rtiouslY hOied, ttieorder of
the state Ethics Commission was mailed on kay 11, _1993. The
request for reconsideration which as mad Oft 8ehalf of iliUhtOn by
his new counsel was dated June 21, 1§93 . That iequtit wAi_not
received in the offices of the State EthiCi dEktimisiion Until June
23, 1993. The fifteen day period during *hi the i441ibit for
reconsideration was required to be Made teiMififited �n may 26, 1993.
Brunton, 92- 038 -C2
Page 3
The request for reconsideration, therefore, was filed almost one
month after the time period had expired. This Commission, in the
past, has determined the filing requirements regarding a request
for reconsideration are mandatory and absent, of course, a showing
of fraud or breakdown in the postal systems, such will not be
extended. See, Smith, Opinion 85 -015; Silver, Opinion 85 -012;
Cowie, Opinion 88- 010 -R.
As to the matter of the consent decree, the parties in this
case, the Investigative Division and Brunton's attorney who wag
then representing him, entered into an agreement to resolve the
allegations subject to our review and approval. The parties agreed
to submit the case without prejudice in the event that the
Commission did not accept the submission. The parties further
agreed that if the Commission ciid accept the submission, such would
be a resolution of the matter with the express waiver of hearing
and appellate rights.
Whether any breakdown in communication occurred between
Brunton and his prior attorney must be confined to the scope of
Brunton's voluntary decision as to that legal representation.
Brunton, through his then legal representative, entered into the
agreement with the Investigative Division which became binding.
There is not, nor should there be, any latitude at this juncture to
set aside the agreement which the parties readily accepted. See,
Bore- Warner v. Board of Fina ce & Revenue, 424 Pa. 343, 227 A.2d
153 (1967).
denied.
In light of the foregoing, the request for reconsideration is
In re: William Brunton
File Docket: 92-038-62
Date Decided: June 28, 1993
Date Mailed: June 30, 1993
VikeeNSIDERAnON .ORDER No. 884-R
1. The request to reconsider Order 884, issued on May 11, 1993,
is deni6a.
BY THE COMMIBBION,
WLEY-•