HomeMy WebLinkAbout1283R ReisIn Re: Frederick Reis, Sr.
File Docket:
X -ref:
Date Decided:
Date Mailed:
02- 057 -C2
Order No. 1283 -R
9/15/03
9/29/03
Before: Louis W. Fryman, Chair
John J. Bolger, Vice Chair
Daneen E. Reese
Frank M. Brown
Donald M. McCurdy
Michael Healey
Paul M. Henry
The State Ethics Commission received a request for reconsideration on August 7,
2003, with respect to Order No. 1283 issued on July 8, 2003. 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:
§21.29. 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.
(c) A request for reconsideration filed with the Commission will delay
the public release of an order, but will not suspend the final order unless
reconsideration is granted by the Commission.
(d) A request for reconsideration may include a request fora hearing
before the Commission.
(e) Reconsideration may be granted at the discretion of the
Commission if:
(1) A material error of law has been made.
(2) A material error of fact has been made.
(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 §21.29(b), (c), (d), (e).
This adjudication of the Commission is hereby issued which sets forth the Discussion
and Reconsideration Order.
This Reconsideration Order is final and shall be made available with Order No. 1283 as
a public document on the fifth (5 business day following the date of issuance of this Order.
Reis 02- 057 -C2
Page 2
DISCUSSION
On July 8, 2003, we issued Reis, Order No. 1283, following our review of the record in
this case.
The allegations were that Frederick Reis, Sr., as a Benezette Township Supervisor,
violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he used the authority of his office for a private
pecuniary benefit for himself or a member of his immediate family by using the township front -
end loader for the benefit of Big Elk Lick Campground, a business owned by him or his son.
In applying the allegations to the facts of record, we found that Reis violated Section
1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he used the township front -end loader on the Big Elk Lick
Campground for personal purposes for distributing berm material into the Big Elk Lick
Campground, a business owned by Reis /his son.
Following the issuance of Order No. 1283, Reis filed a timely Request for
Reconsideration. The Investigative Division filed an Answer to the Petition for
Reconsideration.
In Reis' Request for Reconsideration, he asserts the following: the Investigative
Division did not make its case by clear and convincing proof; this Commission erred in
believing the testimony of Laughlin and Rishel over that of Winslow, Williams, Charlton,
Walsh, Amann and McClellan; this Commission erred in finding that Rishel and Laughlin were
not confused in their testimony; and this Commission erred in finding Rishel and Laughlin to
be truthful, believable and disinterested. In addition, Reis makes purported statements of new
facts in his reconsideration request and attaches various documents which are not part of the
record.
The Investigative Division in its Answer raises the following arguments in opposition to
the Request for Reconsideration: there are no material errors of fact /law or new
facts /evidence that would lead to a reversal /modification of the Order; the witnesses whose
testimony was found credible were within the fact - finding function of this Commission; the
materials attached to Respondent's request are not part of the hearing record, are not newly
discovered evidence, and the purported investigative complaints are suspect and unreliable;
there is clear and convincing proof as to the violation of the Ethics Act by Reis; Respondent
was supplied with the information as required by Section 1108(e) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S.
§1108(e); and the criteria for granting reconsideration have not been met.
Reis' reconsideration request makes three groups of arguments: the lack of clear and
convincing proof; the veracity of his witnesses; and "newly discovered evidence." As to the
proof issue, the testimony of Laughlin and Rishel established Reis' use of the township loader
for personal use at the Campground. As to the witnesses, we already addressed the issues of
their veracity /reliability in the base Order. We will not revisit the same arguments which we
have already considered and resolved. Finally, as to the new evidence, such consists of
materials that are not part of the hearing record. Aside from the fact that such documentation
is inappropriate for submission for that reason, the descriptions of the materials by Reis fall
into the category of irrelevant and immaterial documents. Reis has had his notice and
opportunity to be heard at the hearing on April 8 -9, 2003.
Having reviewed the filings relative to the Request for Reconsideration by Reis, we find
that none of the criteria for granting reconsideration is met.
In Re: Frederick Reis, Sr.
File Docket:
X -ref:
Date Decided:
Date Mailed:
RECONSIDERATION ORDER NO. 1283 -R
1. The Petition for Reconsideration of Reis, Order No. 1283, is denied.
BY THE COMMISSION,
Louis W. Fryman, Chair
02- 057 -C2
Order No. 1283 -R
9/15/03
9/29/03