In Sivick v. State Ethics Commission, 238 A.3d 1159 (Pa. 2020), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reviewed an ethics case involving a Township Supervisor who used the authority of his public office when he discussed, recommended, lobbied, influenced, and sought the support of the Board to effectuate the hiring of his son as a Township employee. The State Ethics Commission had found a violation of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act and imposed $30,000 in restitution. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that a public officer’s purely ministerial acts that incidentally benefit a family member — such as later approving the son’s timesheets and pay — do not, by themselves, create a conflict of interest, and it curtailed the Commission’s authority to impose restitution as a sanction. The Court did not disturb the Commission’s finding that actively lobbying, recommending, or advocating for a relative’s hiring is a conflict of interest violation, and it remanded the case to the Commission to reconsider the appropriate sanction. As a public officer and government employee, the Supervisor had specific official responsibilities and was subject to regulations governing official action and official authority.
The takeaway from Sivick is that if you are a public official or employee, even if your solicitor says that it is okay for your relative to be hired, you need to be very careful not to recommend, lobby, influence, or seek the support of others in authority to get your relative hired. Supervisor Sivick lobbied to get the Township’s Nepotism policy rescinded and then influenced other Board members to hire his son, despite his abstentions from voting. Each board member and member of the governmental body has ethical obligations, and the relevant department is responsible for oversight.
Abstaining from a vote does not shield you from liability if you participate or have participated in the process; participation alone can be an ethics violation. Intent is a key factor in determining whether an action constitutes an ethics violation, especially regarding influence or improper conduct. Other common ethics violations for public officers include accepting gifts, money, or contributions, misuse of public funds or government property, improper disclosure of official information, and conflicts involving financial interests, interests of a minor child, or a general partner. Exceptions and exception provisions exist in ethics laws, but persons and persons required to comply must seek advice from the ethics commission or department before acting.
Local agencies, political subdivisions, and departments are all subject to these regulations, and both current and former employees must avoid conflicts of interest related to other employment or future employment, and must not act on behalf of others in matters they participated in while in office. Ethical conduct is also required during election campaigns, and legislative changes may affect the rules. The law applies to any person, including board members, public officers, and government employees, and official responsibility includes safeguarding public funds and acting in the public interest.
If you have questions regarding this issue or are in need of legal services, I am able to assist. Contact me at 215-822-7575 to schedule a consultation.
Established in 1952 by Irwin S. Rubin, Rubin, Glickman, Steinberg & Gifford P.C. boasts over 65 years of experience serving clients throughout Pennsylvania. Renowned for its commitment to ethical representation, the firm has garnered prestigious accolades, including being named the “Best Law Firm” for its outstanding legal defense work by U.S. News & World Report. Their team of seasoned attorneys, recognized as Pennsylvania Super Lawyers and Rising Stars, brings unparalleled expertise to a wide range of legal matters, ensuring exceptional representation for individuals, families, businesses, and organizations.
Regulatory Framework
The regulatory framework governing ethical conduct for public officials and federal employees is built upon a robust combination of federal laws, executive orders, and agency-specific regulations. At the core are the ethics laws found in Title 18 of the U.S. Code, particularly sections 201-209, which address critical issues such as bribery, illegal gratuities, and financial conflicts of interest. These laws set clear boundaries for official duties and help prevent misuse of government authority.
Executive Order 12674, as amended by Executive Order 12731, further outlines the principles of ethical conduct expected from federal employees across the executive branch. These orders establish important restrictions on future employment and representational services before the federal government, ensuring that employees do not leverage their official positions for personal gain after leaving public service.
The Office of Government Ethics (OGE) plays a central role in this regulatory landscape. The OGE issues advisory opinions, develops regulations, and provides guidance to federal agencies and employees on how to interpret and comply with ethics laws. By promoting a culture of ethical conduct and clarifying the responsibilities tied to official duties, the OGE helps federal employees navigate complex situations and avoid potential violations. This comprehensive framework ensures that government ethics remain a top priority throughout all levels of federal employment.
Responsibilities and Restrictions
Federal employees are entrusted with significant responsibilities and are subject to strict restrictions to ensure their actions serve the public interest. One of the key requirements is that employees must avoid participating in any particular matter involving specific parties where they have a direct and substantial interest, such as a financial stake in a company or organization affected by their official duties. This helps prevent conflicts of interest and maintains the integrity of government decision-making.
Additionally, federal employees are generally prohibited from accepting compensation for representational services before the federal government, except in narrowly defined circumstances, such as representing themselves or immediate family members. These rules extend to post-employment restrictions, which limit the ability of former employees to represent clients or former employers before federal agencies, reducing the risk of undue influence or the appearance of impropriety.
The ethics commission provides ongoing guidance to help employees understand and comply with these responsibilities and restrictions. By clarifying what constitutes a substantial interest or official capacity, and by outlining the boundaries for accepting compensation or engaging in outside employment, the commission supports federal employees in upholding the highest standards of ethical conduct in their service to the government.
Consequences and Accountability
Violations of government ethics laws and regulations carry serious consequences for federal employees and public officials. Those found in violation may face criminal penalties, including fines and imprisonment, as well as disciplinary actions such as suspension or removal from their official position. These measures underscore the importance of adhering to ethical standards in all official duties.
The ethics commission, along with other government agencies, is responsible for investigating alleged violations and taking appropriate enforcement action. Federal employees are required to report any known or suspected violations to their supervisor or the designated ethics office, ensuring that potential issues are addressed promptly and transparently.
Each year, the ethics commission publishes an annual report detailing enforcement actions, trends, and areas for improvement in government ethics. This commitment to accountability and transparency helps maintain public trust in the federal government and reinforces the expectation that all federal employees and officials act with integrity. The attorney general and other high-ranking officials play a vital role in upholding these standards, fostering a culture of ethics throughout the executive branch, and ensuring that ethical conduct remains at the forefront of public service.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a public official be found in violation of ethics laws even if they abstain from voting?
Yes. Under Sivick v. State Ethics Commission, abstaining from the final vote does not shield an official from liability if they otherwise discussed, recommended, lobbied, or sought support to influence the outcome.
Does approving a family member’s routine paperwork automatically create a conflict of interest?
Not necessarily. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that purely ministerial acts that incidentally benefit a family member — such as approving standard timesheets — do not, by themselves, create a conflict of interest.
What other conduct commonly leads to ethics violations for public officials?
Common violations include accepting gifts, money, or contributions, misusing public funds or property, improperly disclosing official information, and conflicts involving financial interests or interests of a family member.
What agency oversees ethics compliance for federal employees?
The Office of Government Ethics (OGE) issues advisory opinions, develops regulations, and provides guidance to help federal employees and agencies interpret and comply with federal ethics laws.
What are the consequences of an ethics violation for a public official?
Consequences can include criminal penalties such as fines and imprisonment, as well as disciplinary action like suspension or removal from office, depending on the severity of the violation.
Facing an Ethics Complaint or Investigation? Contact RGSG
If you are a public official or employee facing an ethics complaint, investigation, or potential conflict of interest, the attorneys at Rubin, Glickman, Steinberg & Gifford, P.C. can help you understand your obligations and protect your rights. Contact us online or call (215) 822-7575 to schedule a consultation.
Rubin, Glickman, Steinberg & Gifford P.C.
Pennsylvania Attorney's
August 24, 2026
