Opinion
Argued September 9, 1980
January 22, 1981.
State Ethics Commission — Act of October 4, 1978, P.L. 883 — Township solicitor — Public employe — Exclusive power of Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to regulate attorneys.
1. A township solicitor is a public employe as that term is used in the Act of October 4, 1978, P.L. 883, and is not outside the statutory requirements simply because his legal relationship with the township is that of independent contractor. [251]
2. Financial disclosure requirements of the Act of October 4, 1978, P.L. 883, as they pertain to township solicitors, unconstitutionally infringe upon the exclusive power of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to supervise attorneys. [251]
Judge WILLIAMS, JR. concurred in the result only.
Argued September 9, 1980, before President Judge CRUMLISH and Judges WILKINSON, JR., MENCER, ROGERS, CRAIG, MacPHAIL and WILLIAMS, JR., Judge BLATT did not participate.
Original jurisdiction, No. 997 C.D. 1980, in case of Jon A. Yost v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission. Petition for review in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania seeking injunctive and declaratory relief from statutory financial reporting requirements. Respondent filed preliminary objections. Held: Preliminary objections sustained. Permission to file amended complaint granted.
Thomas W. Bergen, with him Thomas L. Wenger, Wix, Wenger Weidner, for petitioner.
Sandra S. Christianson, General Counsel, with her Robert E. Raines, Interim Chief Counsel, for respondent.
Jon A. Yost, solicitor for several townships of the second class, has filed a Petition for Review for himself and as representative of a class consisting of solicitors of townships of the second class, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief from provisions of the Act of October 4, 1978 (Ethics Act), P.L. 883, 65 P. S. § 401 et seq., particularly from the requirement of Section 4 that public employees annually file statements of financial interests. The State Ethics Commission has filed preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer.
Mr. Yost alleges that township solicitors are not public employees subject to the Ethics Act, but independent contractors; and that township solicitors are not persons who take or recommend official action — an element of the Ethics Act's definition of public employee. We addressed and rejected these contentions in Ballou v. State Ethics Commission, 56 Pa. Commw. 240, 424 A.2d 983 (1981).
Mr. Yost next raises a plethora of constitutional objections to the Ethics Act. Examination of his Petition for Review discloses no attack on the Ethics Act not already addressed and rejected in the cases of Snider v. Shapp, 45 Pa. Commw. 337, 405 A.2d 602 (1979), and Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors v. Thornburgh, 45 Pa. Commw. 361, 405 A.2d 614 (1979).
Mr. Yost has not raised, however, the question of whether the financial disclosure requirement of the Ethics Act unconstitutionally infringes upon the inherent and exclusive power of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to govern the conduct of attorneys, as we held they did in Ballou, supra. Therefore, while the Petition for Review in its present form states no cause of action, it is apparent that Mr. Yost, a township solicitor, can plead a cause for relief from the requirements of Section 4.
We therefore sustain the State Ethics Commission's preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer, with leave to the petitioner to file an amended Petition for Review within thirty (30) days.
Judge WILLIAMS, JR., concurs in the result only.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 22nd day of January, 1981, the preliminary objection of the State Ethics Commission in the nature of a demurrer is sustained with leave to the petitioner to file an amended Petition for Review within thirty (30) days.