Trending
Probably, many public officials in the six-county Southern Alleghenies region have not heard about the ethics-violation case involving a supervisor in Blair County's Frankstown Township.
Regardless, most Southern Alleghenies region officials probably would be doing themselves a favor if they sought and reflected upon details of that case.
The case can be very instructive.
It's appropriate to use the words "involves" or "involving" in reference to the case, rather than "involved," because there has been no assurances put forth that additional proceedings related to the supervisor, George Henry, will not be forthcoming.
A front-page article in the Mirror's Aug. 27 edition said complete compliance by Henry with an order handed down by the Pennsylvania Ethics Commission -- within the time frame established by the commission -- would close the case and no further action would be taken.
However, case documents indicate that the commission's findings and recommendations are forwarded to the state Office of Attorney General. Action by law enforcement is possible if deemed appropriate and necessary by that office.
Therefore, "involves" is the right word until the Attorney General's Office renders a decision.
To bring anyone who has not heard about the case up to date, Henry, according to the ethics investigation, voted several times for a developer's project within the township, knowing that his own business, Henry's Enterprises Inc., would benefit from the plan.
It wouldn't have been out of line if the proposal upon which Henry voted had been approved by majority vote by the other members of the Frankstown Board of Supervisors.
There would have been no question about Henry's company's eligibility to work on the project.
From an ethics standpoint, the problem evolved because of Henry's votes constituting a conflict of interest that, as a public official, he should have recognized before opting to cast his votes.
His proper first step should have been to consult with the township's solicitor for a legal opinion.
Any other official serving in such a public-service capacity in this state should have, if there was any question or confusion concerning existing laws, sought legal advice before running the risk of acting wrongly.
Findings in the case determined that Henry Enterprises received more than $563,000 for work done after his voting in relation to the Deer Meadow development. Case documents state that Henry Enterprises realized a profit of $48,000 as a result of work performed on Deer Meadow's Phase 4.
But, according to the Mirror's Aug. 27 article, the Ethics Commission's order summary does not just list improper voting. The order summary also "lists multiple violations by Henry" regarding official statements of financial interests that he was required to file.
The commission's order lists a number of directives with which Henry is required to comply within the commission's time-frame structure, including payment of $48,000 to the township. Then for Henry there will be the period of uncertainty tied to the attorney general's evaluation of all information involved.
Especially troubling regarding the case is that Henry was not a "public service rookie" when the violations occurred. In 2021, he was elected to his third six-year term as a Frankstown supervisor.
His situation should serve as a reminder to all public service officials that, regardless of their municipality's physical or financial size, complete compliance with all laws is non-negotiable. That's why governmental entities retain legal services.
One point, as an aside, though, is the question of why the township's other elected officials did not raise the proverbial public red flag before allowing the vote or votes in question to take place.