462 MAIN CAPITOL

HARRISBURG, PA 17120-3053

MEGAN MARTIN
SECRETARY OF THE SENATE

717-787-5920
FAX: 717-772-2344
E-MAIL: ntnartin@o5.pasen.9DV

rm-dr vi 1eitnngtuunia
June 13, 2016
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 Chair of 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 I 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, I 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: A 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.

Opinion Letter
Senator Greenleaf
June 13, 2016

ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION
PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL
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, I 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 2 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 of an 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 of Article III, Section 13 of the Pennsylvania Constitution,
provides:
(1) A 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

Opinion Letter
Senator Greenleaf
June 13, 2016

A JTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION
PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL
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 I 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. g 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, I 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

Opinion Letter
Senator Greenleaf
June 13, 2016

ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION
PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL
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 87001 (Corrigan), p. 3, citing PA Constitution, Art II, Sec. 15 and Art. III, Sec. 13.1
I 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,

nwTht
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 not 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 not
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