Court Opinion

ID: 9647721
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 13:48:19.692575+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:52.495920
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Judge Mencer:
I respectfully dissent. I agree with nearly all that Judge Wilkinson, Jr., has so well written for the majority, but I cannot agree that the Ethics Law1 does not violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
The imposition of the burden of financial disclosure is placed upon elected school directors but not upon appointed school directors. Thus, an appointed school director possessing the same power as an elected school director, beside whom he sits at the school *360board meeting, and subject to the same temptations to abuse that power, need not make the financial disclosure required of the elected school director. In view of the objectives of the Ethics Law,2 there does not seem to me to be any rationale to including the elected school director and excluding the appointed school director from the requirements of the Ethics Law.3 The majority views this distinction as being “neatly, but not irrationally drawn.” I would view it as being too neatly drawn to pass constitutional standards.
Likewise, although I recognize the justification for the classification of cities, I consider those reasons to have no relevancy here. The Ethics Law is intended to “strengthen the faith and confidence of the people of the state in their government.” It is simply not a reasonable or rational classification, to my mind, that that purpose is intended to stop at the boundaries of the City of Philadelphia, where all school directors are appointed. The stated purpose of the Ethics Law *361is no less compelling, depending npon the size of the school district, and I cannot perceive the rationale of requiring school directors throughout the Commonwealth to be subject to the Ethics Law but exempting those in Philadelphia from its provisions.

 Act of October 4, 1978, P.L, 883, as amended, 65 P.S. §401 et seq.

 Section 1 of the Ethics Law stated this purpose as follows:
The Legislature hereby declares that public office as a public trust and that any effort to realize personal financial gain through public office other than compensation provided by law is a violation of that trust. In order to strengthen the faith and confidence of the people of the State in their government, the Legislature further declares that the people have a right to be assured that the financial interests of holders of or candidates for public office present neither a conflict nor the appearance of a conflict with the public trust. Because public confidence in government can best be sustained by assuring the people of the impartiality and honesty of public officials, this act shall be liberally construed to promote complete disclosure.

 In this case, three elected school board directors have alleged in the petition for review, and have testified at the preliminary injunction hearing held before Judge Wilkinson, Je. that they will resign or refuse to run for reelection if required to file a financial statement. Irrationally, the vacancies caused by these resignations will be filled by appointees who are not required to file financial statements.