PENNSYLVANIA Ethics panel rules in favor of legislators over disclosure

A Commonwealth Court had upheld the ballot challenges.
HARRISBURG (AP) -- Three incumbent House Republicans seeking to remain on the April 27 primary ballot won a favorable ruling from the State Ethics Commission, but the state Supreme Court will get the final word.
The commission voted 6-1 Sunday that the legislators' failure to list the General Assembly as a source of income on financial-disclosure statements that accompanied their nominating petitions did not amount to a "fatal defect" because the form specifically exempted "governmentally mandated payments."
The Supreme Court transferred the matter Thursday to the ethics board to consider challenges to the nominating petitions of Reps. Kerry A. Benninghoff of Centre County, Chris Ross of Chester County and William I. Gabig of Cumberland County.
In a 2-1 decision issued March 23, a Commonwealth Court panel had upheld challenges to the three men's petitions and ordered their names removed from the ballot.
Afterward, Gabig called the ruling "a big relief" and said it "brings a dose of common sense finally to this matter." He is the only one of the three with an opponent on the primary ballot.
Up to court
Ethics Commission chairman Louis W. Fryman said the state's highest court "can accept, deny, ignore [or] change" the decision, and the attorney for the House members said he expects the Supreme Court to resolve the matter soon.
"My belief is that they will rule, I hope, by Tuesday," said the lawyer, Lawrence Tabas.
Tabas argued that the purpose of the disclosure requirement was to avoid conflicts of interest by revealing outside income and said it is commonly known that legislators are paid by the state.
The central issue for the commissioners was how to interpret instructions for Block 10 of the statement of financial interest, which requires the "direct or indirect sources of income" of at least $1,300 annually. Block 10's instructions are to list employers, "including governmental bodies," but the directions also expressly exclude "governmentally mandated payments."
The commission determined that the incumbents had not erred because lawmakers' salaries are mandated -- Tabas said the mandate is so specific that state law even prohibits legislators from refusing their legislative pay.
Arguments for challenge
John J. Connelly, the lawyer who represents the voters who filed the challenges, said "governmentally mandated payments" pertained to such income as Social Security disability checks and worker's compensation payments.
He argued that the financial disclosure forms may be amended to correct errors -- but for purposes of qualifying for the ballot, they had to have been accurate by Feb. 17.
Fryman and vice chairman John J. Bolger attended in person the unusual hourlong Sunday-afternoon meeting at Ethics Commission offices in Harrisburg, but the other five commissioners participated by speaker phone.
Although the only matter formally before the commission was Benninghoff's petition, most of the eight speakers addressed all three cases collectively, and the Supreme Court has stayed the challenges to Gabig and Ross until Benninghoff's is resolved.
Three of the seven Supreme Court justices opposed sending the case to the Ethics Commission. Those three indicated they favored restoring the three candidates to the primary ballot.