CITY OF PITTSB U RG H
ET HI C S HE A RI NG BO AR D
CI TY -CO UN TY BUI L D IN G
414 GRANT STREET | CITY-COUNTY BUILDING, ROOM 904, NINTH FLOOR | 412-255-2122
ED GAINEY
MAYOR
LEANNE DAVIS
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
November 30, 2023
Dr. Ameela Boyd, IDEA Manager
City of Pittsburgh Office of the Mayor
414 Grant Street, 5
th
Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
RE: 23-A-008 Financial Interest in City Contract, Receipt of Housing Program Funds
Dear Dr. Boyd:
Per your request for advice submitted on November 29, 2023, my formal advice follows.
I. Issue:
Is an IDEA Manager (hereafter “you”) permitted under the ethics rules to participate in a
housing program originating through a City of Pittsburgh (“City”) contract?
II. Short Answer:
Yes. Based on your job duties and the facts described, there is no conflict of interest nor
contracting violation, and you are permitted to receive housing assistance funds.
III. Jurisdiction:
The Ethics Hearing Board (“Board,”) serves to administer, interpret, and enforce
governmental ethics matters contained in the City’s Code of Conduct, which includes the Code
of Ordinances (“Code”) as well as the Pennsylvania Public Official and Employee Ethics Act
(“State Ethics Act” or “Act”) and portions of the Home Rule Charter (“Charter”) adopted into
our Code. Code §§ 197.01 and 197.11. The Board defers to and is bound to meet or exceed State
Ethics Commission interpretations of the Act. 65 Pa.C.S. § 1111.
The jurisdiction of the Ethics Hearing Board extends to “current and former officials and
employees (and those who, although acting under contract, appear to act as government officials
and employees), consultants, applicants, candidates, contributors to campaigns for City elected
office, and persons and entities who do or seek business with the City (including the owners and
officers of such entities, and subcontractors).” Code § 197.11(a).
23-A-009
2 of 6
Formal advice is binding on the Board in a subsequent proceeding concerning the person
or entity that requested this advice, or to which this advice referred. Code §§ 197.13, 197.16,
and Board Regulation 3.1. Advice may be appealed or amended. Code § 197.13(f).
IV. Background:
Advice is issued based upon the facts submitted. Code § 197.13. In issuing the advisory
opinion, no independent investigation of the stated facts or speculation of omitted facts are
considered. It is the burden of each requesting party to truthfully disclose all material facts
relevant to the inquiry.
The stated facts provide that you have applied to receive financial assistance through two
Housing Opportunity Fund (“Fund”) programs administered by the Urban Redevelopment
Authority (“URA”). One involves up to $7,500 to be used toward closing costs or a down
payment. DPCC Program, ura.org/pages/down-payment-and-closing-cost-assistance-program.
The other provides a mix of grant and loan assistance through the OwnPGH Homeownership
Program totaling up to $90,000 for first-time homebuyers within the City of Pittsburgh. OwnPgh
Program, ura.org/pages/OwnPGH.
The Fund programs are equally available to all city residents with qualifying income and
housing requirements.
You have provided a job description for your position of IDEA Manager. Your duties
include, in summarized relevant part:
- Overseeing the development and implementation of Commission goals, policies, and
strategic plans;
- Drafting policy to advance administrative goals;
- Staffing multiple commissions and program initiatives;
- Representing the Office of the Mayor to external stakeholders; and
- Reviewing candidates for Board and Commission appointments to meet administration’s
goals.
IDEA Manager Job Description.
Finally, you state that in this public position, you possess no authority to act or make
recommendations regarding the administration of any Fund program.
V. Discussion:
This advice is limited in scope to follow the Ethics Hearing Board’s decision in URA,
Opinion, 23-A-002.
All City employees are subject to restrictions on contracting. Charter § 706, Code §
161.17. Employees meeting the codified status of a “public employee” are subject to additional
restrictions, such as conflict of interest. 65 Pa.C.S. §§ 1102 and 1103; Code § 197.03(a).
23-A-009
3 of 6
a. Coverage – Public Employee Status
Our City Code adopts the Act’s five-prong definition for a public employee. 65 Pa.C.S. §
1102, Code § 197.02. A "public employee" is:
“Any individual employed by the Commonwealth or a political
subdivision who is responsible for taking or recommending official
action of a nonministerial nature with regard to:
(1) contracting or procurement;
(2) administering or monitoring grants or subsidies;
(3) planning or zoning;
(4) inspecting, licensing, regulating or auditing any person;
or
(5) any other activity where the official action has an
economic impact of greater than a de minimis nature on the
interests of any person.”
65 Pa. C.S. § 1102; Code § 197.02; Quaglia v. State Ethics Comm'n, 986 A.2d 974, 976 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 2010).
An objective test is employed to apply this definition to a public position and determine
coverage. Phillips v. Commonwealth, State Ethics Com., 79 Pa. Commw. 491, 494, 470 A.2d
659, 660 (1984). Written materials documenting the authority conveyed to a public role are
utilized in the analysis. Quaglia v. State Ethics Comm'n, 986 A.2d 974, 980 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010)
(holding "[u]nder the objective test, an employee's duties and responsibilities as set forth in job
specifications or job description, rather than actual duties and responsibilities performed by the
employee, determine whether the employee is a public employee.").
If the objective materials present any ambiguity, coverage is reached because of the
“liberal, expansive interpretation to be given the Act's coverage provisions.” Quaglia v. State
Ethics Comm'n, 986 A.2d 974, 982 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (citing Phillips, 470 A.2d at 661). The
courts have consistently held that “[t]he Ethics Act, being remedial legislation, is to be liberally
construed." Kremer v. State Ethics Com., 56 Pa. Commw. 160, 424 A.2d 968 (1981).
Accordingly, a borderline position is considered a public employee because “the coverage of the
Ethics Act must be construed broadly, and its exclusions must be construed narrowly.” Quaglia
v. State Ethics Comm'n, 986 A.2d 974, 979 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010).
Per your job description, you are authorized to take or recommend official governmental
action relating to policy development and implementation, staffing, and assisting with Board and
Commission appointments. It is also noted that your role is externally facing and tasked with
engaging with numerous external organizations to accomplish the goals of the administration.
These duties authorize you to take or recommend governmental action with the potential to
create a non-insignificant economic consequence on the interest of any person.
Your position is considered a public employee under the Act and the Code.
23-A-009
4 of 6
b. Conflict of Interest
The purpose of conflict of interest restrictions is to ensure a public employee does not act
in their public capacity concerning matters that impact their private interests. When conflicts
unavoidably occur, one must recuse themselves from any involvement in the matter. 65 Pa.C.S. §
1103(j). The City’s conflict of interest rule states that “[n]o public official or public employee
shall exert influence
1
with respect to property or a business with which he or a member of his or
her direct family is associated.” Code § 197.03(a). The State Ethics Act prohibits “[u]se by a
public official or public employee of the authority of his office or employment or any
confidential information received through his holding public office or employment for the
private pecuniary benefit of himself, a member of his immediate family or a business with which
he or a member of his immediate family is associated.” 65 Pa.C.S. §§ 1103 and 1102.
Here, there is no factual basis to meet the elements of a conflict of interest. While your
participation in the Fund programs involves a property with which you are associated, that of
your prospective home, there are no facts or circumstances asserted to infer the use of the
authority of your public position to exert influence on that property.
It is important, especially in light of your proximity to the Mayor and his cabinet, to take
caution to not comingle personal matters with your public position and the scope of your
influence. The “use of authority” described in the state conflict of interest law is expansive; it
exceeds listed job duties and includes “every facet of that position” such as discussing,
conferring with others, and lobbying for a particular result. Juliante, State Ethics Commission
Order 809. Our Home Rule Charter and Code similarly restrict the use of one’s position. Charter
§ 706 (“No...employee shall in any manner … accept any service or thing of value directly or
indirectly upon more favorable terms than those granted to the public generally, from any person,
firm or corporation having dealings with the City.”), Code § 197.04. (“No public official or City
employee shall use or allow to be used any City facilities, property, staff or information obtained
in the course of his or her employment for personal use other than would be generally available
to the public at large.”).
c. Contracting
Ethics restrictions on contracting provide that you are prohibited from receiving a
“benefit from the profits or emoluments of any [City] contract,” as well as from having any
“pecuniary interest in any [City] contract” with a violation resulting in the forfeiture of
employment or office. Charter § 706; Code § 161.17. However, participation in the housing and
welfare programs do not constitute an unlawful financial gain because the programs are available
1
“Influence” is defined as: The proposal of, the voting on or the participation in any legislative discussion of or
attempt to influence the course of any proposed legislation of the city; the participation in the selection, award or
administration, other than of a ministerial nature, of any contract, benefit or award to which the City is a party or
which is supported by any public funds administered by the city; participation in any matter involving, other than on
a ministerial basis, the inspection, regulation, licensing or auditing of an entity by or as required by the city. Code §
197.02(f).
23-A-009
5 of 6
as a public service to all city residents. URA, Opinion, 23-A-002 (citing NYC Charter Chapter 68
which excludes from its restricted conduct “accepting or receiving any benefit or facility which
is provided for or made available to citizens or residents, or classes of citizens or residents, under
housing or other general welfare legislation or in the exercise of the police power.”).
In this matter, there are no facts to support the conclusion that participation in the Fund
programs creates unlawful financial gains of profit, emolument or pecuniary interest. The Fund
programs are housing and welfare programs, and receipt of City services is not a pecuniary or
proprietary interest in a contract. URA, Opinion, 23-A-002. Compare, Keller v. State Ethics
Comm'n, 860 A.2d 659, 665 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (finding a private pecuniary gain when the
public official made “deposits into his own personal bank account and determined when, where,
how much, and to whom the money went.”).
If you are awarded financial assistance through the Fund programs, this conduct is
permitted because the Board does not view participation in such housing and welfare programs
to constitute prohibited profit, emolument, income, or pecuniary gain from a City contract.
VI. Conclusion:
The described prospective conduct is permitted. You are not restricted from participating
in the Fund programs, because there is no use of your position related to this matter and receipt
of such financial assistance does not violate contracting restrictions. URA, Opinion, 23-A-002.
This opinion is a public record and made available as such. It will also be indexed and
posted on our website. You may rely on this opinion only to the extent that the disclosure of facts
and circumstances provided in your request are accurate and complete.
Based on the facts presented, this advisory opinion only relates to the above cited
sections of the Code. No position is being expressed regarding the effect and application of any
other statutes, codes, ordinances, regulations or other rules of conduct, including but not limited
to any departmental policies. Code § 197.20 allows for the City, and its subdivisions, to create
more restrictive policies or procedures than is expressed in this advisory.
If you disagree with this advice, or if you have any reason to challenge the same, you
may ask the Board for reconsideration. Any request for reconsideration must be in writing and
received by the Board within thirty days from the date this advisory opinion is signed below. The
conclusion contained in this advisory opinion will remain in full force and effect unless and until
it is amended or revoked.
Please contact me with any questions.
Sincerely,
23-A-009
6 of 6
/s/ Leanne Davis
Leanne Davis, Esq.
Ethics Hearing Board Director and Ethics Officer
cc:
via electronic mail
Maryann Herman, Chair
URA Legal Counsel
