The Dolan Grand Jury heard from 20 witnesses. Among them is Robert P. Caruso, the Executive Director of the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission (See pages 37 - 40). He explained that the Ethics Act exists to prevent the private interests of people in public office from conflicting with the public trust.
According to Caruso, it is unlawful for any public official to use his public position for the private pecuniary benefit of himself, a member of his immediate family or a business with which he is associated. That includes nonprofits. Caruso states that if a public official is a director, officer or employee of a non-profit, and that person through his public responsibilities engages in conduct that facilitates or attempts to facilitate a financial benefit to that nonprofit,that conduct is a "conflict of interest" as that term is defined under the State Ethics Act.
The Ethics Commission can recommend felony charges be brought for violations
Caruso was asked specifically about Dolan, and concluded her conduct is a potential violation. It makes no difference whether she was actually being paid.
He was not asked about Nazareth, but the actions in that government is a potential violation as well.
In early September, I first told you about Nazareth Ambulance, a nonprofit staffed by paramedics and EMTs who provide emergency care to the sick and injured in the Nazareth area, including Gracedale. I have no quarrel with Nazareth Ambulance itself, which does outstanding work. My concern is with its board. It's comprised almost entirely of people who already have a role in Nazareth government.
According to the 2012 nonprofit tax return for Nazareth Ambulance, the most recent one on record, its eight-member board included Nazareth's Treasurer, the Nazareth Borough Solicitor, the Mayor, the Borough Council President and a Borough Council member. I have no idea whether that's still the case, but suspect it is.
In 2013, when Nazareth Borough Council voted to condemn 9 acres (J7-16-2a), which is part of the new ambulance center. None of the ambulance directors recused themselves from the vote. They used the authority of their office (Borough Council) for the private pecuniary benefit of a business (Nazareth Ambulance) with which they are associated. It is unknown whether any Council members or the other borough officials are paid in connection with their board duties. But it does not matter. They engaged in a conflict of interest.
In 2012, when Nazareth applied for a $50,000 County Gaming Grant to extend G.W. Stoudt Boulevard from from its current terminus at the Highway Garage to intersect with Gracedale Avenue in Upper Nazareth, Nazareth makes clear that the grant was for the benefit of Nazareth Ambulance, not borough residents. With this road extension, response time to Gracedale would improve. So would response time to the western portion of Upper Nazareth.road, But none of that has anything to do with the Borough. The Borough officials who prepared this grant request were also members of the Ambulance Board. This is a conflict of interest.
In September, right after I told Nazareth Borough Council about this conflict of interest, members till unanimously voted on at least one matter involving the ambulance company. Dan Chiavaroli,, the Council President, did abstain in the second matter.
Like Bethlehem,Nazareth and probably most Lehigh Valley communities need to enact policies and procedures to guard against future conflicts of interest.
22 comments:
It is a shame that this young woman who has done so much for the city has to endure this treatment. Her enemies have found the perfect tool to destroy her life. A victim of the politics of personal destruction.
You just can't let go of your inaccurate "young woman" descriptor.
She destroyed her own life because of her arrogance and her belief that she could do whatever she wanted. A Grand Jury weighed the evidence and found her wanting. Her downfall is her own doing. It should be a warning to all officials, in all communities, that when they serve those who elected them and on boards where their participation in decisions is a conflict of interest, they are subject to the laws of the commonwealth.
Dolan could have abstained from a number of votes that took place. Instead, she chose to advance her own agenda at the cost of taxpayers.
So, say, "Adios" to Dolan. She has been given an opportunity to resign and go gently into the night, probably without further action taken against her. If her arrogance still exists and she doesn't resign, the judiciary will take it to the next level and prosecute.
Is there a way to find out if any of these council members are receiving financial income from their roles on Nazareth EMS council? If the answer is YES then they have clearly used their political position to ensure financial stability for the ambulance corp. They want to get paid, then they will do everything in their power to make sure that the ambulance corp survives and thrives. Any way to see if those council members had the ambulance corp on their insurance policy in 2011 or 2012? An inspection of the policy perhaps or a least a viewing of the accident claims that had been paid for by the Boro?
FT = FIRE TRACHTA
FT = FIRE TRACHTA
FT = FIRE TRACHTA
FT = FIRE TRACHTA
FT = FIRE TRACHTA
FT = FIRE TRACHTA
FT = FIRE TRACHTA
FT = FIRE TRACHTA
dolan is just the tip of the iceberg of the goings on during the jc fiasco
this is a pretty broad prohibition.
LVEDC? BEDCO?
Whether it is LVEDC,BEDCO or any other nonprofit, the restriction exists to prevent elected and appointed officials from acting with divided loyalties. Frankly, I see no reason why any elected official should promote the agenda of an arm of the LV Partnership, our unelected aristocracy.
LC Comm'rs took action in 2009 to deal with this problem. It is time that all other municipalities follow suit.
5:47, I have to review how far i can go with a RTK to a nonprofit.It is not very far. I can also seek statements of financial interest. I am also conserned that the Borough Council Solicitor may very well be getting paid by Nazareth Ambulance. I believe he also represents the Nazareth Authority, which should be a separate body with a different attorney.
Is the implication here that employees or Directors of nonprofits should not hold public office? If so, we would lose a lot of really good public servants. Potential conflicts of interest lurk everywhere, and are perhaps even more nefarious within the for profit sector. Transparency in all endeavors should be required, but it really should not be a problem if someone serves on a school board, or a city council, and also serves as a volunteer on a nonprofit board. Those are the people we want making decisions - the ones who care enough about our communities to volunteer their time and talent.
That is the implication. I think it is a real problem bc it is easy for an elected official with a pet nonprofit to ensure that his nonprofit is given advantages He can convince himself that he is acting in the public interest, but he's not. He owes his fidelity to the people who elected him or the municipality he serves. Lehigh County took steps to end this practice, and I don't see any shortage of people clamoring for public office.
" Those are the people we want making decisions - the ones who care enough about our communities to volunteer their time and talent."
I'll bet you do. Get your "volunteers" elsewhere.
This is more problematic than Dolan or Nazareth ems.
Municipal codes encourage and or require support of a number of non profits including volunteer fire departments, veterans organizations, historic preservation operations, etc It is highly probable that in a small community that a number of elected officials could be members of such organizations.
The ethics act has thrown a monkey wrench into many of these organizations, such that Rendell sought a stay on an ethics commission finding banning participation of state employees of dcnr and dep in volunteer fire companies. The court review dont know the outcome but rendell asked the senate for review. There is a real problem requiring legislative action to deter the Dolans and permit the freedom to participate in these volunteer community groups.
Not sure I understand why nonprofits are so different regarding conflicts of interests than for profits. Take your statement "it is easy for an elected official with a pet nonprofit to ensure that his nonprofit is given advantages" and substitute 'for-profit' business for the word 'nonprofit'. The same potential problem exists. For-profit businesses exert undue influence on government all the time, and we should be careful of it. Just not sure why the rules safeguarding undue influence must be different between the sectors. There are protocols to avoid conflicts of interest. We should employ them, but to exclude anyone from service who has a connection to a nonprofit is overkill, just as it would be to exclude anyone who has any business connection.
The Ethics Act does not mandate that elected or appointed officials have no role in a nonprofit. They require the conflicted official to recuse himself. But all too often, that does not happen. In the mind of the official, he does not see the conflict that he would readily recognize in a for=profit. And that is the danger.
I think it is very important for an elected official who miht also be on the board of some local nonprofit to consider resigning. If he thinks he can both, he has to remember the law and follow it. That has not been happening.
I agree that it is up to the official, and also agree that it has not happened in the higher profile cases discussed here. It would be hard to determine how often the system DOES work, since that would generally go unnoticed. The nonprofit sector is so diverse, in terms of mission, geography, size, etc. It ranges from huge hospitals and universities to small theaters and food banks. I just feel that to exclude anyone with a direct connection to this sector from public service would be overkill, and would unnecessarily handicap both the public and the nonprofit sectors, especially if protocols are in place to deal with conflicts. Just utilize the protocols, and we will be fine. I would also add that blogs like this are an important part of holding public officials accountable to their constituents, and to actually adhering to ethics standards. I wish our mainstream print media would be equally involved.
The Ethics Act imposes no prophylactic. That is my response, and i admit it might be a knee-jerk response.
The Ethics Act imposes no prophylactic. That is my response, and i admit it might be a knee-jerk response.
Bernie,
Has any elected official in PA been prosecuted for having a conflict of interest with a non-profit when there was no financial benefit?
Vince Fuomo comes to mind, but he financially benefited. So did Dolan, but that's really incidental. I don't think she was engaged in a conflict for the money. She used her influence and threatened and intimidated people to ensure that her nonprofit could do what it wanted. She reached the conclusion that everything connected with the nonprofit was in the public interest. Much if that might be true, but she was in office to represent the people of Bethlehem. She disgraced her office and needs to resign. I believe she committed a crime, but would not file charges myself. It's a felony, and Dolan is no felon. She abused her office, but I think she is ill.
Should't city solicitor advise council people like Dolan about a potential conflict even if she doesn't request the opinion? Could she ever have voted for a budget without a conflict even if she quit from the nonprofit board? Is it true that the fox center ad its own license so the wine issue was not a conflict as Dolan claims?
The $128,000 debt was for physical improvements to the building? And were not pre approved by the city?
Shouldn't the city solicitor advise of a potential conflict. even if someone like Dolan doesn't ask for an opinion? Would Dolan ever have been without conflict to vote for a town budget even if she resigned from the nonprofit? Is it true that the Fox center had its own liquor license and so the wine issue was not a conflict as Dolan claims?
Was the $128,000 debt to make physical repairs to the building? If so, why would they need to be paid back? Weren't expenditures preapproved?
I'm not going to debate what has already been established. What you are trying to do is throw out another lifesaver so Dolan can evade responsibility. She knew she had a conflict and raised lesser examples against others.
Post a Comment