Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1365R TittertonIn re: John Titterton File Docket: 03 -055 X -Ref: 1365 -R Date Decided: 9/12/05 Date Mailed: 9/21/05 Before: Louis W. Fryman, Chair John J. Bolger, Vice Chair Donald M. McCurdy Raquel K. Bergen Nicholas A. Colafella The State Ethics Commission received a request for reconsideration on June 27, 2005 with respect to Order No. 1365 issued on June 6, 2005. 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 for a 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. Titterton, 03 -055 Page 2 This Reconsideration Order is final and shall be made available with Order No.1365 as public documents on the fifth (5th) business day following the date of issuance of this Order. DISCUSSION On June 6, 2005, we issued Titterton, Order No. 1365, following our review of the record in this case. The allegation was that Titterton, a public official, in his capacity as a Supervisor for Upper Makefield Township, Bucks County, violated Sections 1103(a), and 1103(f) of the State Ethics Act (Act 93 of 1998), 65 Pa.C.S. § §1103(a), and 1103(f) when he used the authority of his office for the private pecuniary gain of himself or a member of his immediate family or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated, including but not limited to participating in discussions and actions of the board of supervisors to award a contract to his spouse or a company controlled by him or his spouse, in excess of $500 without an open and public process; and when he participated in actions of the board of supervisors to approve payments to SGT Designs or Sharon Titterton. In accepting the proposed consent decree of the parties, we found that: 1 Titterton, as a Supervisor for Upper Makefield Township, did not violate Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act in relation to the contract between the Township and Sharon Titterton /SGT Designs, as Titterton abstained from participating in actions relating to the award of said contract and the approval of all but one of the payments resulting therefrom, which payment may have been de minimis. 2. Titterton technically violated Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act in relation to the Township's award of a contract to Sharon Titterton /SGT Designs, as such contract was in excess of $500 and awarded without an open and public process. Following the issuance of Order No. 1365, Titterton filed a Request for Reconsideration. Titterton, in his Request for Reconsideration, objects to the phraseology of our finding of a technical violation of Section 1103(f) as to the Township's award of a contract to Sharon Titterton /SGT Designs, as such contract was in excess of $500 and awarded without open and public process. Titterton has raised four points in support of his request for reconsideration: he did not participate in the decision to award the contract to Sharon Titterton /SGT Designs but trusted the other Township Supervisors and Township Manager, who was an attorney, and the Township Solicitor; he did not advise the Board on how it should go about deciding the contract for the web design services; he did not discuss with the Board, the Solicitor or the Manager any aspect of the contract with Sharon Titterton, his spouse; and this Commission unfairly used the language found in Conclusion of Law 3, Item 2: that Titterton technically violated Section 1103(f) "; instead of the Consent Agreement language that states "a technical violation of Section 1103(f) occurred ". All of Titterton's argument reduce to the following: Titterton does not like that his name appears in the statement of the technical violation of Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act. Titterton has not asserted any material error of law or fact but merely his dissatisfaction with the use of his name in the finding of the technical violation of Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act. Titterton, 03 -055 Page 3 To state the obvious, this investigation was as to Titterton, who received the charges at the commencement of the investigation. The base Order resolved these allegations of violations of the Ethics Act by Titteron as a public official. Titterton's name appeared because the charges are against him. In short, the Order is an accurate reflection of the Consent Agreement of the parties. Brunton, Order 884 -R. Any perceived displeasure with phraseology or the inclusion or omission of phraseology forms no basis for reconsideration provided the three criteria for reconsideration are absent. Titterton seeks the deletion of his name as to the technical violation. We find this amounts to an attempt on his part to tailor our Order to phraseology which he considers suitable. Such an inappropriate request presents no basis for granting reconsideration. Phraseology is within the exclusive province of this Commission. We find any posed objection to our phraseology under a consent agreement to be picayune and spurious. No argument has been raised by Titterton which would meet the requisite standard for reconsideration. No material error of law has been established. No material error of fact has been established. No new facts or evidence has been provided which would lead to a reversal or modification of Order 1365. Titterton has failed to meet his burden of proof to establish any need for reconsideration. The Request for Reconsideration is denied. In Re: John Titterton RECONSIDERATION ORDER NO. 1365 -R 1 The Petition for Reconsideration of Titterton, Order No. 1365, is denied. BY THE COMMISSION, File Docket: 03 -055 Date Decided: 9/12/05 Date Mailed: 9/21/05 Louis W. Fryman, Chair