Board reviews draft Allegheny County code of ethics, including recusal, disclosure and post-employment rules
Loading...
Summary
County attorneys presented a comprehensive rewrite of the county code of ethics modeled on New York State law. Key points discussed included the definition of "relative," gift limits, disclosure timelines, recusal rules, the composition of a county Board of Ethics and a proposed two‑year post‑employment restriction.
Allegheny County officials on Sept. 17 reviewed a proposed overhaul of the county’s code of ethics, a draft the county attorney said updates a 1970 local law and aligns county rules with New York State’s general municipal law.
“This local law establishes a code of ethics and a board of ethics for the county of Allegheny and is repealing local law number 2 of 1970,” the county attorney said while presenting the draft. The county attorney said the draft is modeled on Article 18 of the New York State General Municipal Law and that outside counsel reviewed the text.
The draft covers definitions, disclosure and recusal obligations, restrictions on private employment and post‑government employment, gift limits and a new clause on the use and reuse of recorded board proceedings. Under the proposed rule, some gifts are prohibited if their annual aggregate value from one donor exceeds $75 and they “could reasonably be expected to influence” the official’s duties; customary modest gifts for special occasions and certain job‑related refreshments are excepted.
Legislators debated several substantive choices. Some raised concern that the proposed definition of “relative” (which includes first cousins in the draft) is too expansive. “Everybody is somebody’s first cousin in this county,” one legislator said, arguing the definition could unduly restrict normal county operations and contracting. The county attorney acknowledged parts of the draft reflect state law requirements and some items can be tailored locally.
The board also questioned a proposed two‑year restriction that would bar a former county officer or employee from representing private clients before their former county office for two years after leaving county service. The county attorney said similar codes use windows “anywhere between 1 year to 2 years.” Several legislators advocated shortening the period to one year or providing a waiver process; one suggestion was to allow the Board of Ethics to consider waivers.
Members discussed recusal procedures and the interaction between the code and existing board rules, including how recusals and abstentions should be recorded and handled procedurally. The draft also specifies the county Board of Ethics would have five members, a majority of whom “shall not be officers and employees of the county,” and at least one member who is a county officer or employee, matching State guidance cited by the county attorney.
The county attorney said the draft also adds a provision that recordings owned by the county of regular, special or committee meetings may not be used for political campaign purposes pursuant to Public Officers Law §73‑b; members asked the attorney to clarify in the text that the restriction applies to county‑produced recordings. The draft sets a $75 baseline for gift reporting and links annual financial disclosures to a May filing deadline.
No formal vote was taken. The county attorney invited further review and edits and said staff will provide clarifying language and reconvene for additional committee consideration.
