Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-542 RinehartADVICE OF COUNSEL Christopher J. Hartman, Esquire Hartman, Hartman, Howe & Allerton, PC 2901 St. Lawrence Avenue P.O. Box 4429 Reading PA 19606 Dear Mr. Hartman: April 23, 2003 03 -542 Re: Conflict; Public Official /Employee; Township; Supervisor; Property Owned By Supervisor And Supervisor's Sisters; Immediate Family; Subdivision Plan; Vote; Deadlock; Three - Member Board. This responds to your letter of March 27, 2003, by which you requested advice from the State Ethics Commission. Issue: Whether the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act ( "Ethics Act "), 65 Pa. .S. § 1101 et seq., presents any prohibition or restrictions upon a township supervisor who owns property jointly with his three sisters as tenants in common with respect to participating and voting on a subdivision plan for the property submitted by the supervisor when there is a tie vote on a three member board. Facts: On behalf of W. Atlee Rinehart ( "Rinehart "), you seek an advisory from the tate Ethics Commission. You have submitted facts, which may be fairly summarized as follows. Rinehart is a member of the three - member Board of Supervisors ( "Board ") of East Coventry Township Township "). As a Supervisor, Rinehart votes upon all matters corning before the Board, including the approval of land development plans and real estate subdivision plans. In a private capacity, Rinehart owns property ( "Property ") jointly with his three sisters as tenants in common in fee simple title within the Township. High Associates, Ltd. ( "High Associates" ), a division of High Industries, Inc., has executed an agreement to purchase a portion of the Property. High Associates has provided a sum of money to Rinehart and his three sisters as partial payment for the purchase of the Property. Closing on the Property and Hartman /Rinehart 03 -542 April 23, 2003 Page 2 conveyance of the Property to High Associates cannot occur until the Township approves a subdivision of the Property. At closing, Rinehart and his three sisters will receive an additional sum of money as the remainder of the payment for the purchase of the Property. Rinehart has submitted a subdivision plan for the Property which is currently pending before the Board for approval. It is anticipated that the Board will vote upon High's subdivision plan at its April 17, 2003, Township Public Meeting. You state that Rinehart believes that he has a conflict as to his subdivision plan which is pending before the Board and that he intends to comply with the disclosure requirements under the Ethics Act. Based upon the foregoing facts, you ask whether Rinehart may participate and vote if the other two Supervisors initial vote results in a tie. Discussion: It is initially noted that pursuant to Sections 1107(10) and 1107(11) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. §§ 1107(10), (11), advisories are issued to the requestor based upon the facts which the requestor has submitted. In issuing the advisory based upon the facts which the requestor has submitted, the Commission does not engage in an independent investigation of the facts, nor does it speculate as to facts which have not been submitted. It is the burden of the requestor to truthfully disclose all of the material facts relevant to the inquiry. 65 Pa.C.S. §§ 1107(10), (11). An advisory only affords a defense to the extent the requestor has truthfully disclosed all of the material facts. As a Supervisor for East Coventry Township ("Township"), W. Atlee Rinehart (Rinehart ") is a public official as that term is defined in the Ethics Act, and hence Rinehart is subject to the provisions of that Act. Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act provides: § 1103. Restricted activities (a) Conflict of interest. - -No public official or public employee shall engage in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest. 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a). The following terms are defined in the Ethics Act as follows: § 1102. Definitions "Conflict" or "conflict of interest." Use by a public official or public employee of the authority of his office or employment or any confidential information received through his holding public office or employment for the private pecuniary benefit of himself, a member of his immediate family or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. The term does not include an action having a de minimis economic impact or which affects to the same degree a class consisting of the general public or a subclass consisting of an industry, occupation or other group which includes the public official or public employee, a member of his immediate family or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. Hartman /Rinehart 03 -542 April 23, 2003 Page 3 "Authority of office or employment." The actual power provided by law, the exercise of which is necessary to the performance of duties and responsibilities unique to a particular public office or position of public employment. "Immediate family." A parent, spouse, child, brother or sister. 65 Pa.C.S. § 1102. In addition, Sections 1103(b) and 1103(c) of the Ethics Act provide in part that no person shall offer to a public official /employee anything of monetary value and no public official /employee shall solicit or accept anything of monetary value based upon the understanding that the vote, official action, or judgment of the public official /employee would be influenced thereby. Reference is made to these provisions of the law not to imply that there has been or will be any transgression thereof but merely to provide a complete response to the question presented. Section 11030) of the Ethics Act provides as follows: § 1103. Restricted activities (j) Voting conflict. - -Where voting conflicts are not otherwise addressed by the Constitution of Pennsylvania or by any law, rule, regulation, order or ordinance, the following procedure shall be employed. Any public official or public employee who in the discharge of his official duties would be required to vote on a matter that would result in a conflict of interest shall abstain from voting and, prior to the vote being taken, publicly announce and disclose the nature of his interest as a public record in a written memorandum filed with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting at which the vote is taken, provided that whenever a governing body would be unable to take any action on a matter before it because the number of members of the body required to abstain from voting under the provisions of this section makes the majority or other legally required vote of approval unattainable, then such members shall be permitted to vote if disclosures are made as otherwise provided herein. In the case of a three - member governing body of a political subdivision, where one member has abstained from voting as a result of a conflict of interest and the remaining two members of the governing body have cast opposing votes, the member who has abstained shall be permitted to vote to break the tie vote if disclosure is made as otherwise provided herein. 65 Pa.C.S. § 11030). In each instance of a conflict, Section 1103(j) requires the public official/ employee to abstain and to publicly disclose the abstention and reasons for same, both orally and by filing a written memorandum to that effect with the person recording the minutes or supervisor. In the event that the required abstention results in the inability of the governmental body to take action because a majority is unattainable due to the Hartman /Rinehart 03 -542 April 23, 2003 Page 4 abstention(s) from conflict under the Ethics Act, then voting is permissible provided the disclosure requirements noted above are followed. See, Mlakar, Advice 91- 523 -S. In applying the above provisions of the Ethics Act to the instant matter, you are advised that Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act does not prohibit public officials /public employees from having outside business activities or employment; however, the public official /public employee may not use the authority of his public position - or confidential information obtained by being in that position - for the advancement of his own private pecuniary benefit or that of a business with which he is associated. Pancoe, Opinion 89 -011. Examples of conduct that would be prohibited under Section 1103(a) would include: (1) the pursuit of a private business opportunity in the course of public action, Metrick, Order No. 1037; (2) the use of governmental facilities, such as governmental telephones, postage, staff, equipment, research materials, or other property, or the use of governmental personnel, to conduct private business activities, Freind, Order No. 800; Pancoe, supra and (3) the participation in an official capacity as to matters involving the business with which the public official /public employee is associated in his private capacity or private client(s). Miller, Opinion 89 -024; Kannebecker, Opinion No. 92 -010. A reasonable and legitimate expectation that a business relationship will form may also support a finding of a conflict of interest. Amato, Opinion No. 89 -002; Garner, Opinion No. 93 -004; Snyder Order No. 979 -2, affirmed nyder v. SEC 686 A.2d 843 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1996), alloc. den., No. 0029 M.D. Allocatur Docket 1997 (Pa. December 22, 1997). As a Township Supervisor, Rinehart would generally have a conflict as to matters before the Township Board of Supervisors that would financially benefit himself, a member of his immediate family, a business with which Rinehart or a member of his immediate family is associated, or private client(s). See Miller supra Kannebecker supra. Rinehart would specifically have a conflict as to matters involving the Property, his sisters who are immediate family members, High Associates with which he has a business relationship, or the subdivision plan for the Property that is pending before the Board. As noted above, in each instance of a conflict, Rinehart would be required to abstain fully and to satisfy the disclosure requirements of Section 1103(j) of the Ethics Act. Where a conflict of interest would exist, Rinehart would still be permitted to participate under certain limited circumstances. In Garner, Opinion 93 -004, the Commission considered the issue of whether, under Section 30) of the Ethics Law, a supervisor on a three member board would be permitted to second a motion even if he had a conflict where the two remaining supervisors would have opposing views or where one of the remaining two members would be absent from the meeting. Citing Juliante Order 809, the Commission first noted that seconding a motion is a use of authorityofoffice. Hence an individual with a conflict would not be permitted to participate, make a motion, second a motion, or vote. See, Garner, supra. However, the Commission also stated: Garner at 6. [T]he General Assembly in enacting Section 30) would not have allowed a public official /employee on a three member board who has a conflict to be able to vote unless a second to the motion could be made so that the matter would be in the posture for a vote. Thus, we believe that since there is a need for a second to a motion in order to make Section 30) of the Ethics Law operative, the General Assembly intended as to three members [sic] boards for the public official with a conflict to be allowed to second so that if the other supervisors became deadlocked, the public official could then vote provided the disclosure requirements are satisfied. Hartman /Rinehart 03 -542 April 23, 2003 Page 5 In light of the foregoing the Commission concluded that Section 30) of the Ethics Law does allow an individual to second a motion where the two remaining supervisors have opposing views or where one of the other two supervisors is absent. The Commission emphasized that its ruling was expressly limited in its application to three member boards and to the question of seconding a motion. Applying Garner to the instant matter, under Section 11030) of the Ethics Act, Rinehart would be permitted to second a motion only in a situation where, on a three member board, 1) the two remaining Supervisors would have opposing views; or 2) one of the other two Supervisors would be absent from the meeting. Allowing Rinehart to second the motion in either of the above scenarios would put the matter in a posture for a vote. Thereafter, if the other two supervisors cast opposing votes, Rinehart would be permitted to vote to break the tie provided he satisfied the disclosure requirements of Sections 11030). The propriety of the proposed conduct has only been addressed under the Ethics Act; the applicability of any other statute, code, ordinance, regulation or other code of conduct other than the Ethics Act has not been considered in that they do not involve an interpretation of the Ethics Act. Specifically not addressed herein is the applicability of the Second Class Township Code. Conclusion: As a Supervisor for East Coventry Township ( "Township "), W. Atlee Rinehart ( "Rinehart ") is a public official subject to the provisions of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act ( "Ethics Act "), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq. Rinehart's sisters are members of his immediate family. Rinehart would generally have a conflict as to matters before the Township Board of Supervisors that would financially benefit himself, a member of his immediate family, a business with which Rinehart or a member of his immediate family is associated, or private client(s). Rinehart would specifically have a conflict as to matters involving the Property, his sisters who are immediate family members, High Associates with which he as a business relationship, or the subdivision plan for the Property that is pending before the Board. As noted above, in each instance of a conflict, Rinehart would be required to abstain fully and to satisfy the disclosure requirements of Section 1103(j) of the Ethics Act. Where a conflict of interest would exist, Section 11030) of the Ethics Act would allow Rinehart to participate under certain limited circumstances. Based upon prior Commission precedent, Rinehart could second a motion where the two remaining Supervisors would have opposing views or where one of the other two Supervisors would be absent. Allowing Rinehart to second a motion in either of the above scenarios would put the matter in a posture for a vote. Thereafter, if the other two supervisors cast opposing votes, Rinehart would be permitted to vote to break the tie provided he satisfied the disclosure requirements of Sections 11030). Lastly, the propriety of the proposed conduct has only been addressed under the Ethics Act. Pursuant to Section 1107(11), an Advice 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, provided the requestor has disclosed truthfully all the material facts and committed the acts complained of in reliance on the Advice given. This letter is a public record and will be made available as such. Finally, if you disagree with this Advice or if you have any reason to challenge same, you may appeal the Advice to the full Hartman /Rinehart 03 -542 April 23, 2003 Page 6 Commission. A personal appearance before the Commission will be scheduled and a formal Opinion will be issued by the Commission. Any such appeal must be in writing and must be actually received at the Commission within thirty (30) days of the date of this Advice pursuant to 51 Pa. Code § 13.2(h). The appeal may be received at the Commission by hand delivery, United States mail, delivery service, or by FAX transmission (717 - 787 - 0806). Failure to file such an appeal at the Commission within thirty (30) days may result in the dismissal of the appeal. Sincerely, Vincent J. Dopko Chief Counsel