Pennsylvania Advisory Opinions September 13, 1971: AGO 67 (September 13, 1971)

Advisory Opinion Text

Conflict of interest—Possible incompatibility of positions of Hazleton City Councilmen and Solicitor for Hazleton Border Authority.

1. Possible incompatibility of Positions of Hazleton City Councilmen and Solicitor for Hazleton Border Authority is a local matter over which the Justice Department lacks authority to act.

Louis G. Feldmann, Esquire

Feldmann and Ciotola

Northeastern Building

Hazleton, Pennsylvania 18201

Dear Mr. Feldmann:

I have your letter of August 3, 1971, with respect to the possible incompatibility of the positions of City Councilman of the City of Hazleton and Solicitor for the Hazleton Water Authority.

You surely realize that this is a local matter over which this office lacks authority to act. However, notwithstanding our prior correspondence in this matter, I believe that these positions are governed by Section 1001 of the Third Class City Code, 53 P. S. § 36001, which sets forth the qualifications of councilmen in the following specific language:

"The councilmen shall be at least twenty-five years of age, and shall be elected by the electors at large. They shall have been residents of the city wherein they shall be elected throughout one year next before their elections, and shall reside therein throughout their terms of service. No officer of the United States or of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (except notaries public or officers of the militia), nor any county officer, nor any officer of any school district embraced in the territory of said city, nor any officer or employe of said city, or of any department thereof, nor any member or employe of a municipality authority of which the city is a member, shall serve as a councilman during his continuance or employment, except as hereinafter provided."

We have analyzed the opinion of City Solicitor McCullough and although we normally do not comment on such matters, under the circumstances here present we offer the following observations:

1. The language of the statute quoted above is mandatory.

2. The clear intent of the statute is to prevent a councilman from being placed in a potential conflict of interest situation.

3. The question of whether or not the solicitor for the authority is an "employe" of the authority within the meaning of the above quoted statute does no seem to us to be free from doubt.

Although we cannot give binding legal advice in this situation, there are, of course, other legal avenues open to those who wish to dispute the ruling of the city solicitor.

Sincerely,

J. Shane Creamer, Attorney General.