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