Date post: | 02-Mar-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | kody-leibowitz |
View: | 217 times |
Download: | 0 times |
of 4
7/26/2019 Ruling From Megan Martin on Sen. Greenleaf
1/4
MEGAN MARTIN
462
MAIN
CAPITOL
SECRETARY OF THE
SENATE HARRISBURG
PA 17120 3053
717 787 5920
FAX:
717 772 2344
E MAIL : ntnart in@o5 pasen 9DV
The
Honorable
Stewart
J
Greenleaf
Senate
of
Pennsylvania
19 East Wing
Harrisburg
PA
Dear Senator
Greenleaf
This is in
response to your
request
for
an
opinion as to whether
you have
a
conflict
of interest
conducting a hearing today in
your
capacity
as
hairof the
Senate
Judiciary
Committee on
House Bill
1947. This bill
concerns
changing
the
statute
of
limitations in cases involving
childhood sexual
abuse.
The facts
as
understand
them
after
speaking with you
are
as
follows
You
have
explained to
me that a
proponent of
the bill has claimed you
have a conflict of
interest
in
presiding
over
a
hearing
on House
Bill
1947 because
in
the
late 2000s a
former
attorney in
your
law firm
handled a
case
involving this subject
matter.
Moreover a reporter
has now
questioned
you
and
asked
if you
are
going to recuse
yourselffrom
all involvement
in
the bill because
of that prior
representation. You
have
further
explained
to
me
that
the
attorney who
handled that case is no
longer
associated
with
your
firm
and
has not
been
for
several years.
Moreover
you
indicated
to
me
that you
did not
participate
in that
representation
and that you
derived
no
personal benefit
from
that representation.
Typically in
accordance with
our
Constitution
provide
opinions on
whether
a
conflict
exists that
would
prevent a
Member
of
the Senate from
voting
on
a
bill
or
other matter pending
before
the
Senate; but here
there
will be no vote today
because
this
is a
hearing
on a legal
issue pertaining
to the bill The Pennsylvania
Constitution governs
conflicts
of interest for members of
the
General
Assembly
when
voting
on issues
pending
before the
respective body
member who
has
a
personal or private interest
in
any
measure or bill proposed
or pending
before the
General Assembly shall disclose the fact
to
the
House of
which
he
is a
member and
shall not vote
thereom
PA
Const
Art III
Sec
13
rm dr
vi
1eitnngtuunia
June 13
2016
7/26/2019 Ruling From Megan Martin on Sen. Greenleaf
2/4
Opinion Letter
ATTORNEY-CLIENT
COMMUNICATION
Senator Greenleaf
PRIVILEGED CONFIDENTIAL
June 3 2016
ATTORNEY
WORK-PRODUCT
It is
important to note there are no recusal provisions in
the
Constitution for
members
of
the General Assembly concerning
their
other duties, such
as
presiding
over hearings; the limitation
proscribed
in
the
Constitution applies only to voting on
matters.
The proponent of the bill and the reporter
who
seek
your recusal
are
asking
for something that
does
not exist
your
recusal on
all
aspects of a
piece
of
pending
legislation.
Nonetheless,
because there
could be votes
on
this bill
both
in
committee
and
on
the
floor by
the full
Senate,
will
provide
you with an opinion, which addresses both
votes.
As
you
know, every Senator must
vote
on
each
question during session unless
he/she is on
leave
or excused from voting. Senate Rule
0 a .
Similarly, every
Senator is required to vote on
each
question in committee,
unless he/she
has been
excused
from
voting. Senate Rule 16. It is generally accepted that the
law
explicitly
favors and
views
as
extremely
important the duty ofan elected
official
to vote and
represent his or her
constituency. Therefore, an elected
official
should be
excused/relieved of this duty only in clear
cases
and
where the
official has
a
direct
personal
interest
in the
matter
or the
matter
is
particularly
personal. Masons
Manual,
sec. 522.1.
If a
Member
seeks to be
excused
from
voting, the applicable Senate Rule,
which
is
basically a restatement ofArticle III, Section 13 of the Pennsylvania Constitution,
provides:
1) Senator desiring to be excused
from
voting
due
to a
direct,
personal,
private
or
pecuniary interest
in
any
question
or bill proposed
or pending
before the
Senate,
shall seek a
ruling
from the presiding
officer.
2)
Senators who seek
a
ruling
on
whether
they have
a
direct, personal,
private
or
pecuniary
interest in
any
question
or
bill
proposed or
pending
before the Senate shall, after the Senator is recognized
by the presiding
officer,
make
a brief statement of the reasons for making the request
and ask
the presiding officer to decide whether or
not the Senator must
vote.
The
question
shall
be decided
by
the
presiding officer without debate.
Senate
Rule
20 c
emphasis added .
It
has
long
been the practice
of
the Senate
to
look
at each situation
on
a
case-by-case
basis
and
closely examine
the relevant
facts to see
whether
the
Member has
a
conflict of
interest.
The
standard
applied in
the
Senate to determine
if
the
Member
Page
7/26/2019 Ruling From Megan Martin on Sen. Greenleaf
3/4
Opinion
Letter
A
JTORNEY CLIENT COMMUNICATION
Senator
Greenleaf
PRIVILEGED
CONFIDENTIAL
June
13
2016
AITORNEY
WORK PRODUCT
has a direct personal private
or
pecuniary interest is
whether
the Member is a
member
of
a
class
of
individuals
who could be
affected
by
the
matter
being
considered.
If
the Member
is a
member
of a class
of
individuals
that
could
benefit
generally from the matter
being considered
then no conflicts
have been
found
and
the
Member has
been
compelled
to
vote
on
the matter.
Simply
stated
if
there
is
no
direct benefit
to
the
Member from
passage
of
the
legislation then there is no
conflict.
In cases
concerning questions of
conflict of
interest
there
is
an abundance of
Senate
precedent
to
guide us.
Although
could find
un
examples
in our journals where the
Chair
ruled
that a Member
had
a conflict
of
interest
there are numerous
examples
in
our Senate Journals
of
rulings
by
the
Chair
that no conflict
existed.
Oct. 15
2013
p.
1028; june 28 2013
p.
798; June
30 2012
p.
754; Nov. 20 2007
pp .
1337 38;
July 12 2007
p.
967;
June
30
2007
p.
858;
March
27 2007
p.
281;
Nov.20 2006
p.
2238;
Dec.
19 2003
pp .
1280 81; Jan. 24
1995
p.
73;
Oct. 26 1987
p.
1284;
July 12
1974
p.
2210.
It must
be reiterated that
this opinion is unique
because there will
be no
votes today
on House Bill 1947.
Rather
as Chair of
the
Senate
Judiciary
Committee
you
will
preside over
a hearing on a legal issue related to
this
bill today.
Importantly
there is Senate precedent
to
guide us. In 2007
you
requested
a
ruling
from the
Chair
when your
firm
had a client that
could
have been impacted
by
passage
of
the
bill under
consideration.
The Chair
ruled that
you
had
no conflict and
that
you
must
vote
because there was
nothing
particularly
personal
to you
in the
bill
as
the
bill
potentially impacted
the
client
not you. Further
the
Chair
concluded
that
passage
of
the
bill may or may
not
affect an
entire
class
of
individuals
who were
similarly situated
to your firms
client
Finally
the
Chair
concluded
that you
would
be
in a class
of
all attorneys representing such
clients
Senate Journal Nov. 20
2007
pp.
1337 38. Moreover opined
on
a
similar issue
for you
on June
17
2014
when
at that time your law
firm
had a client who
could
have
been impacted
by
passage
of
certain legislation. In
both
of
those
instances however your
firm
was
actively
representing
the client
at the time the legislation was pending;
that
is not the
case
today. Rather
an
attorney who is
no
longer
associated
with
your firm
represented
the client
many
years
ago.
It is
within
this legal framework
that
your
request
must
be
analyzed and in
so
doing
leads
me to
conclude
that
you
have
no
conflict
of
interest voting
on
this bill.
Senate
precedent
fully
supports
that
a
Member does
not
have
a
conflict
of
interest
voting
on
a
bill that
may
or
may not
impact
a client
of a
law
firm
with which
a
Page
3
7/26/2019 Ruling From Megan Martin on Sen. Greenleaf
4/4
Opinion Letter
ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION
Senator Greenleaf
PRIVILEGED CONFIDENTIAL
June
3
2016
ATTORNEY
WORK-PRODUCT
Member is
associated.
Here,
there
is
no
such
client The
representation
took
place
many
years ago by an
attorney who
is
no
longer
associated
with
your
law
firm.
There
is
nothing
particularly
personal to you in this
bill
and
there is no
direct
pecuniary
interest which would accrue
to you from passage
of this
bill.
Even if the conflict
of
interest provisions
applied
to
your
role
as
a committee chair
conducting a hearing
where
no
votes are
being
taken,
the
result would
be
the
same
no
conflict of interest.
Based
on
the facts
presented,
you
have
no conflict
voting
on
this bill; therefore,
it reasonably follows
you similarly have
no
conflict
conducting
a
hearing
on
this
bill where
no
votes will
be taken.
There
is simply
no basis for
your
recusal.
Finally, it is
important
to
note the
Ethics
Commission
has
opined
it has no
jurisdiction to
address
the
legislative
activities of Members
of
the
General
Assembly
because these are
constitutionally
controlled.
State
Ethics Commission Opinion
87-
001 Corrigan ,
p.
3, citing PA Constitution,
Art II
Sec.
15
and
Art. III,
Sec.
13.1
hope that this
letter
has served
to
explain my understanding
of
the law
concerning
conflicts of
interest
and
voting in
the Senate of
Pennsylvania.
If you
would
like
to
discuss
this
in greater detail,
jilease
do
not
hesitate
to contact
me
at
your
convenience.
Respectfully,
nw t
MegaMartin
Parliamentarian
of
the
Senate
CC
The Hon. Mike Stack
President
of the
Senate
Drew
Crompton
General
Counsel to
the
Republican
Caucus
It is noteworthy that the Commissions
test for determining
whether
or
no t a
conflict
exists for
other public officials is the same
standard
as
the
Senate
standard:
The
Commission...has
determined,
on
a
number
of occasions,..that a
public
official
is
no t
precluded from
participating
in a matter if it affects
the official
as
a member
ofa group or
class
of
individuals
that
would
benefit
generally
from the
specific
action in which
the official
has been involved.
Opinion
87-001 Corrigan),
p.3.
Page
4